What's new
By:

Evolution discussion

Darkwing Duck said:
Reading up on Cremo.

He also believes there's a worldwide scientific community effort to suppress the already gathered evidence in the paranormal AND Bigfoot/Yeti, etc.
t.
Click to expand...

His book Human Devolution, which like Forbidden Archeology claims that man has existed for millions of years, attempts to prove this by citing "every possible research into the paranormal ever conducted anywhere to 'prove' the truth of holist Vedic cosmology which proposes the presence of a spiritual element in all matter (which takes different forms, thereby explaining the theory of 'devolution')

How can anybody take that seriously?:)
 
Darkwing Duck said:
For humans, you have this from 12Mya

pierolapithecus-catalaunicus-univ-missouri-pd.jpg


To this at 4.5Mya

230px-Ardipithecis_Ramidus_skeleton_1994-1996.jpeg


To this around 3.8Mya

Lucy_blackbg.jpg


50,000 ya

Figure_2_2_1.jpg


25,000 ya

lagarvelho2.jpg


Last one is "modern" human, Cro-magnon.
Click to expand...


I'll take as fact that all of these images are correct and properly identified. How is it that you conclude that these species came into existence by way of evolving from one another.
 
AKMVP said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.
After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain. What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.
A Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .*.*. the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

Now, would you like to debate me on my favorite fossil subject...........Archaeopteryx"?
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Reading up on Cremo.

He also believes there's a worldwide scientific community effort to suppress the already gathered evidence in the paranormal AND Bigfoot/Yeti, etc.



The other criticisms brought by the scientific community is that he rejects modern data that refutes the conclusions on alleged artifacts found in the 1800s that no longer exist.
Click to expand...

Cremo is the author of Forbidden Archeology, but he is distinct from the scientists whose research he compiles. Whether he believes in paranormal subjects is irrelevant. Incidentally, the government also believes in paranormal subjects, but that too is irrelevant here.

These artifacts are not "alleged" but verified by multiple scientists, as is standard procedure.

Your first instinct, it seems, is simply to discredit the discovery and the messenger of it. To my eyes, this is your normalcy bias (assuming you accept 'origin of species' as normal).
 
Last edited:
carolinajazz said:
N Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found.

Now, would you like to debate me on my favorite fossil subject...........Archaeopteryx"?
Click to expand...

It is exact opposite. There is numerous transitional species documented. What transition is not clear for you? We already discussed land mammals to cetaceans. You want to talk dinosaurs to birds? Fish to amphibians? Apes to humans? Reptiles to mammals? Sorry bud, you already made fool of yourself trying to say that reptiles have scales and birds feathers completely forgetting or not knowing that birds have scales as well or that there were feathered dinosaurs. Are you sure you want to dig deeper?
I again would suggest to read this book - time very well spend.

https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11630&page=1
 
carolinajazz said:
A Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .*.*. the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you creationists? This Nillson dude died in 1955 - thus he never knew anything about last 58 years of science, he was even unaware of continental drift! Can you guys please find some real and up to date scientist supporting your ridiculous claims?

"Oblivious to continental drift (not a commonly-accepted theory at the time), Heribert-Nilsson invokes tremendous tsunamis for the fact that many fossil floras, such as that of the London Clay, consist of species whose modern relatives live in tropical countries far removed from the site of deposition as G. Ledyard Stebbins writes in an article for The Quarterly Review of Biology in 1955.
According to Stebbins Heribert-Nilsson's final line of "evidence" against evolution consists of an attempt to criticise certain basic principles of genetics, particularly the linear order of the genes on the chromosomes.

As these principles are nowadays confirmed beyond any doubt, it is no surprise that Heribert-Nilsson's hypothesis of emication hasn't found any resonance."
 
Catchall said:
I'll take as fact that all of these images are correct and properly identified. How is it that you conclude that these species came into existence by way of evolving from one another.
Click to expand...

I'll assume "you" is the scientific community since I never received the training in forensic paleoanthropology. Basically, the techniques are very similar to forensic work. Teeth, skulls, and pelvises are really good bones to look at because that's where a lot of the similarities with small complexity differences come into play, which is the basis on which the branching model is made. These two species, or specimens, or whatever you're looking at, has x amount and y things in common as "z" type organism. All mammals have x. All primates have y. All homonoids have z. That's the main basis.

And here's the fun part, x, y, and z are subject to change. There has to be substantial factors to change the models, and it has definitely happened before. Would be interesting to see an unearthed fossil contradict the entirety of evolution on Earth, but I'm not holding my breath. Changes are more minute than that. A humanoid fossil in the past couple years has put into question when bipedalism developed in what became humans. Previously, it was thought it was a reaction to the loss of forest in Africa, and that the gained height of bipedalism, with the cost of losing the arboreal ability becoming moot, helped defend against predators. Recent discoveries had hominoids developing before the loss of trees, leading to new ideas and thoughts. Current ideas now are that having two hands for a growing intellect made males appear more helpful and desirable for females. Being bipedal also lets certain attributes be more visible to the opposite sex, another suggestion on why bipedalism was more attractive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top