Evolution discussion

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

So that fella was in Gabon 1.8 Billion Years Ago?

The 'fella' is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and former head of the Atomic Energy Commission. The uranium deposits were independently analyzed by an entire team and were determined to have been extracted and utilized. Such uranium deposits have never otherwise been found to be naturally occurring. They were dated to be 1.8bn years old. That leaves two choices: 1) believe that the reactor was intelligently designed and operated during that time frame, or 2) believe it was a natural geophysical phenomenon.

I'm taking door number 1. But doing so makes Darwin's vision of human evolution impossible.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

In the 1880s and beyond there has been ample archeological evidence to draw Darwin's origin of species into question, if not into doubt altogether. However, such evidence has been suppressed and subjectively interpreted by some in a scientific community who are personally pre-invested in the Darwinian paradigm.

Telling me that such and such is a "well accepted" theory does not make it true, especially when there are reputable scientists who are willing to argue to the contrary even at the expense of their academic careers.

Also, posting two disparate pictures of dogs does not satisfy my question seeking evidence of intermediate organisms. There are glaring gaps in the fossil record across the entire spectrum of Darwin's proposed tree of evolution.

Again, you'd have to back up that sort of claim. Why wasn't evidence against Lamarck's initial hypothesis on the origin of species suppressed if you think there's a scientific conspiracy about evolution?

And there's no evidence that you can provide. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity was modified in the face of new evidence. All the evidence you think exists doesn't pass scientific muster. It just doesn't. You HAVE to understand the basics of how evolution actually works and what it means before you can apply it to a 4 billion year timeline.

For humans, you have this from 12Mya

To this at 4.5Mya

To this around 3.8Mya

50,000 ya

25,000 ya

Last one is "modern" human, Cro-magnon.

 

[MVP]

Carlos Ribeiro was director of the Geological Survey of Portugal and a member of the Portuguese Academy of Sciences. In the years 1860-63, Ribeiro surveyed discoveries of stone tools found at various sites in Portugal, and was surprised to find that some of the sites were of Tertiary age. Ribeiro proceeded to make his own collections of implements from Tertiary formations in Portugal. He presented his discoveries in 1871 to the Portugeuse Academy of Sciences at Lisbon and in 1872 to the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archeology at Brussels. Some scientists accepted the human manufacture of the objects and their Tertiary provenance, but others did not.

I have very serious doubts that in 1860 or so accurate dating of fossils or geological beds was available or could be trusted. What proof we have that tools he found where really from Tertiary period? I guess none.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Can you describe what glaring gaps you personally see? And as we all know very well there were millions of new fossils and discoveries since Darwin, so his proposed tree of evolution was adjusted numerous times in regards to those findings. See whale evolution video again.

Okay, I'll go look up a chart of evolutionary development and start pointing out gaps.

In the meantime, why don't you explain how man-made tools were discovered in pristine and insulated Tertiary rock layers in California.

Then remind me to look up the trilobite fossils.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Again, you'd have to back up that sort of claim.

Go back and read the Abstracts from Michael Cremo on the prior page. It's his claim, and it's backed by reputable archeologists. It seems you're simply ignoring that.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I have very serious doubts that in 1860 or so accurate dating of fossils or geological beds was available or could be trusted. What proof we have that tools he found where really from Tertiary period? I guess none.

You mean dating methods applied to the entire Tertiary layers of rock? You could apply modern dating techniques to that if you'd like. The Tertiary is an enormous time span ranging back to 65 million years ago, but all of it challenges Darwin.

 

[MVP]

#2 - Numerous discoveries are documented in the work of Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson in their book Forbidden Archeology and research publications. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/88473.Forbidden_archeology_

Over the past two centuries archeologists and anthropologists have ignored, forgotten and suppressed vast quantities of evidence showing that human beings like ourselves have existed on this planet for tens of millions of years. Forbidden Archeology documents a systematic process of "knowledge filtration" and constitutes a serious challenge to the Darwinian theory of evolution.(less)

Human skulls - https://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/skbones.htm

'Man-made' artifiacts - https://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/anomalous.htm

This has same value as this:

I hope you get my point.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Fair enough. Yet certain objective facts render Darwin's 'origin of species' theory highly improbable.

And they would be?

 

[carolinajazz]

What are you talking about? There is thousands of fossils of transitional species and there is numerous living animals now which can be regarded as transitional species. You again making same mistake as numerous evolution deniers are making - since it can't be observed within our lifetime it must be wrong. Think about how short humanity's history is compared to billions of years of evolution. Think how much environment and climate including such important thing as oxygen levels and temperature changed throughout Earth history and imagine it's influence on all living beings.I am not even talking about ice ages or meteor's hitting Earth and creating havoc.

....problem with that reasoning: "Given enough time" nothing is impossible is that "time" tends to cause deterioration rather than improvement of things! This is especially true if your trying to say or use mutations to prove evolution! Since 99 percent of all mutations are bad and make things LESS suitable for survival, your appeal to immense spans of time, millions or even billions of years does not change the picture! Machines left to themselves decay and inanimate matter tends downward, not upward! Time produces disintegration, erodes cliffs and even granite rock. It is destructive, not constructive!

 

[MVP]

You mean dating methods applied to the entire Tertiary layers of rock? You could apply modern dating techniques to that if you'd like. The Tertiary is an enormous time span ranging back to 65 million years ago, but all of it challenges Darwin.

I know what Tertiary is. What I am saying that in 1860 Ribeiro had no chance to prove that what he found was actually 20mil year old or 200.000 year old. Technology was not there. As I said it would be enough to find a single fossil and prove that it is not fitting into time line of it's previous discoveries to shatter evolution theory. Not a single was found. You would think country like USA where 60% of population reject evolution would publish such finding if it would be true to support creationism and God's will? Where is it? Show me hominid remains from Jurassic for example. Or any reptile from Cambrian. Or birds from Devon. Come on at least single one would be found if it would be true!?

 

[carolinajazz]

Hey I found this really creepy *** fake progression on the internet

I'm going to have nightmares.

......and then came the "Birdman".....I mean "Bird flu!" Plays for the Heat right now! I suspect he will end up with 6 legs and a couple of wings....if the ink poison doesn't kill him first!

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Why wasn't evidence against Lamarck's initial hypothesis on the origin of species suppressed if you think there's a scientific conspiracy about evolution?

Popular support for 'origin of species' seems to have started with Darwin. According to this cite, Lamarck was not well respected during his lifetime.

https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html