Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[konradv]

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

Not necessarily. Evolutionary theory says things may change, not that they must. Sharks, for example, have changed very little over the eons.

The fact that they were wrong about extinction is just a distraction, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of evolution. All that it proves is that it's easy to hide in the ocean.

 

[Youwerecreated]

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

Not necessarily. Evolutionary theory says things may change, not that they must. Sharks, for example, have changed very little over the eons.

The fact that they were wrong about extinction is just a distraction, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of evolution. All that it proves is that it's easy to hide in the ocean.

Evolution is all things are always evolving I guess it depends on which evolutionist you are speaking to. Bottomline there is no evidence supporting that all living things are a product of macroevolution zero,none. The theory is only supported by explanations of the evidence not proof. Everyone can have opinions but does mean the opinion is correct. While there is mountains of evidence that shows that change within a group happens through reproduction. Meaning genes passed on from parents and their parents determines the offspring.

 

[rdean]

So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?

You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .

Because "magical creation" is logical, completely reasonable and totally provable.

 

[konradv]

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

Not necessarily. Evolutionary theory says things may change, not that they must. Sharks, for example, have changed very little over the eons.

The fact that they were wrong about extinction is just a distraction, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of evolution. All that it proves is that it's easy to hide in the ocean.

Evolution is all things are always evolving I guess it depends on which evolutionist you are speaking to. Bottomline there is no evidence supporting that all living things are a product of macroevolution zero,none. The theory is only supported by explanations of the evidence not proof. Everyone can have opinions but does mean the opinion is correct. While there is mountains of evidence that shows that change within a group happens through reproduction. Meaning genes passed on from parents and their parents determines the offspring.

Who said things are always evolving? Sharks have changed very little over the eons and the coelocanth is basically the same as its ancient anscestor. Of course things show change through reproduction, it's the well spring of evolution or there would be no more life! When one individual achieves a mutation that helps with survival it slowly moves through the population until more and more individuals have the gene. Eventually as such mutations accumulate and aid in survival there will be an explosion in individuals with the changes, enough so that they can be recognized in the fossil record as a new species.

 

[pinqy]

don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ?

Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found. That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.

Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?

But they did show changes. There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths. Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family. There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.

Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families. Or it might not be. Nobody has the answers at this time.

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?

You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .

Because "magical creation" is logical, completely reasonable and totally provable.

Creation probable yes,proven no, reasonable yes. The first cell forming itself unreasonable , the first cell forming all life through a natural means, mathematically impossible. A natural process thinking of everything needed for life to begin and exist, vivid imagination. Irony all the smart men with certificates of education and sophisticated machines and knowledge cannot create life in controlled environments can't recreate the origins of life but an unintelligent natural process can.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found. That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.

But they did show changes. There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths. Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family. There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.

Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families. Or it might not be. Nobody has the answers at this time.

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.

 

[konradv]

You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .

Because "magical creation" is logical, completely reasonable and totally provable.

Creation probable yes,proven no, reasonable yes. The first cell forming itself unreasonable , the first cell forming all life through a natural means, mathematically impossible. A natural process thinking of everything needed for life to begin and exist, vivid imagination. Irony all the smart men with certificates of education and sophisticated machines and knowledge cannot create life in controlled environments can't recreate the origins of life but an unintelligent natural process can.

If it's true that it's mathematically impossible, show the proof or a link to the proof. Without it this just sounds like another off-the-top-of-your-head made up objection. Why couldn't it all be a natural process? God set it up that way when He said, "Let there be light". The rest of Genesis is just legend and allegory. None of it has ever been proven to happen and there's no evidence of a world wide flood, unlike the overwhelming evidence of evolution presented by the fossil record.

 

[konradv]

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.

You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you? Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found. That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.

But they did show changes. There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths. Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family. There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.

Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families. Or it might not be. Nobody has the answers at this time.

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

Oh I can't wait for this what changes ? Please don't tell me the change could be something the change could be considered a deformity ? There different breeds of most group of organisms. Please don't tell me it did not have eyes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.

You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you? Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.

Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.

 

[konradv]

This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.

You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you? Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.

Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.

You have no facts, just objections. If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution. The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you? Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.

Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.

You have no facts, just objections. If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution. The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.

Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.

 

[pinqy]

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.

This should be interesting...what, exactly, was the mistake? By what means should it have been known that the Order Coelacanth was not extinct and that there were existing species not found in the fossil record?

 

[pinqy]

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

Oh I can't wait for this what changes ? Please don't tell me the change could be something the change could be considered a deformity ? There different breeds of most group of organisms. Please don't tell me it did not have eyes.

I told you the changes....the Coelacanths found were NOT THE SAME SPECIES as found in the fossil record. Even the genus was previously unknown.

What part of "different species" was unclear? I'm not a biologist and would not even know where to find the detailed differences nor is it likely I would understand them well if I did.

 

[konradv]

Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.

You have no facts, just objections. If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution. The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.

Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.

NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it. What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution. It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case. That's "intellectual dishonesty". You like that any better that being called a liar? Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed. Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts. I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again. If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It did show changes, and they did find others. 2 species of Coelacanths have been found. Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed. It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data. Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths. So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?

Oh I can't wait for this what changes ? Please don't tell me the change could be something the change could be considered a deformity ? There different breeds of most group of organisms. Please don't tell me it did not have eyes.

I told you the changes....the Coelacanths found were NOT THE SAME SPECIES as found in the fossil record. Even the genus was previously unknown.

What part of "different species" was unclear? I'm not a biologist and would not even know where to find the detailed differences nor is it likely I would understand them well if I did.

When you guys start using the word species that is code for time to add confusion,if you can't tell me what the differences are how do you know they are a different breed. Are you suggesting the fossils were different ? You do understand they found no soft tissue to test for biological differences. Like I said earlier , one evolutionist tried using a deformed fish that had no eyes to show evolution that was pretty funny.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have no facts, just objections. If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution. The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.

Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.

NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it. What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution. It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case. That's "intellectual dishonesty". You like that any better that being called a liar? Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed. Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts. I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again. If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.

Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a lie at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are in and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.

 

[konradv]

Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.

NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it. What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution. It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case. That's "intellectual dishonesty". You like that any better that being called a liar? Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed. Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts. I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again. If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.

Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a low at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.

You're the one turning this into a religion. I'm all about scientific observation. When new data comes in, the theory may be tweaked, but that hardly makes the underlying thesis untrue. A good example is the thought that we would find smooth transitions in the fossil record, but in fact the "punctuated equilibrium" is a much better explanation of how things work. That doesn't throw into question all of Darwin's findings, just some of the conclusions about how evolution works. What you're calling "errors" is in actuality the advancement of knowledge, built and modified as more data becomes available. Scientists are always making claims before all the facts are in, because all the facts will NEVER be in. That's just another creationist trick, like demanding every intermediate form or claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Youwerecreated]

NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it. What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution. It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case. That's "intellectual dishonesty". You like that any better that being called a liar? Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed. Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts. I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again. If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.

Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a low at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.

You're the one turning this into a religion. I'm all about scientific observation. When new data comes in, the theory may be tweaked, but that hardly makes the underlying thesis untrue. A good example is the thought that we would find smooth transitions in the fossil record, but in fact the "punctuated equilibrium" is a much better explanation of how things work. That doesn't throw into question all of Darwin's findings, just some of the conclusions about how evolution works. What you're calling "errors" is in actuality the advancement of knowledge, built and modified as more data becomes available. Scientists are always making claims before all the facts are in, because all the facts will NEVER be in. That's just another creationist trick, like demanding every intermediate form or claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Creationist are not making demands,they're just pointing out the many problems with the theory. Darwin himself said that if his they be true there would be many transitional fossils connecting each groups that evolved and that's not the case. I will agree with you one thing though all the facts will never be in if its left to man to explain. But with god someday all the facts and details will be in. It won't be left to mans vivid imagination.