<p>That Avida website was really interesting. I downloaded the program too. Its cool. It'll be really nice to learn to create our own environment files, rewards etc. I tried changing the env a bit and found nice results. This must be a blow to creationism.</p>
<p>any empirical science is a blow to creationism</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
any empirical science is a blow to creationism
[/QUOTE]
How so? There is scientific evidence for creationism. You may feel that it is not as strong as the scientific evidence for evolution, but the evidence is definitely there.</p>
<p>what's the scientific evidence for creationism?</p>
<p>For one thing, the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, especially before the appearance of relatively complex lifeforms. Since this is the main evidence needed to uphold the evolutionary theory, its absence definitely impugns the integrity of the evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>i will add to willow_41z's post:</p>
<p>evolutionary theory states to from species A to species E, there have to be "transitionary species" B,C, and D. So it is logical to say that out of all the fossils unearthed, the number of transitionary species fossils discovered should be more than the fossils of the two distinct species. However, this is not the case ever since paleontologists have been excavating for fossils. the fossils they find are those of distinct species and NOT any transitionary species.
Even Darwin himself acknowledged this in The Origin of Species in the chapter called "Difficulties on Theory". He was quick to add that not enough fossils had been exhumed and later on scientists would find transitional fossils of species. but, almost 150 years and few hundred thousand fossils later, the absence of any transitional species fossil speaks for itself</p>
<p>"There is scientific evidence for creationism"</p>
<p>ha ha ha. oh my you slay me, you are as funny as when bush tries to pronounce nucular</p>
<p>GOD of course everyone should know that.</p>
<p>Taking AP BIology immediately after freshman Intro Biology only reinforced my conviction of evolution as presented originally by Darwin and now modified as "The Modern Synthesis."</p>
<p>Let me see if I can still apply my AP Biology in this thread :D</p>
<p>The two views of macroevolution are gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.</p>
<p>Gradualism is the model proposed by Darwin. He felt that evolution was a tremendously slow, accumulative process that did feature many so-called transitional species. The lack of fossils of these transitionary species merely attests to the incompleteness of the fossil record. Perhaps they were in existence for too short of a time?</p>
<p>Punctuated equilibrium states that evolution occurs more rapidly than as proposed by Darwin; the keyword is "more." Thus, the lack of transitionary fossils merely corrobates the view of rapid evolution!</p>
<p>
<opinion></opinion></p>
<p>Creationism is dangerous. Intelligent Design is even more dangerous. If you analyze it from an objective point of view, you'll realize that it's quite ridiculous.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The lack of fossils of these transitionary species merely attests to the incompleteness of the fossil record. Perhaps they were in existence for too short of a time?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>There are a small handful of transitional fossils that have been found. However, given the length of time which evolution would have taken, and the vast number of species on the Earth, we should have found more, even with an incomplete fossil record!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Punctuated equilibrium states that evolution occurs more rapidly than as proposed by Darwin; the keyword is "more." Thus, the lack of transitionary fossils merely corrobates the view of rapid evolution!
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The two factors in this statement are the rate of evolution and the size of the gaps in the fossil record. For example, the jump from single-celled organisms to a diversity of complex organisms in the Cambrian era cannot be explained merely by punctuated equilibrium.</p>
<p>I didn't read Campbell's carefully enough, but what about the Cambrian Explosion?</p>
<p>did u ever consider that the reason that there is no fossils of transitional species, is because there are no fossils. fossils usually form when an animal dies in water. also there has to be little geologic change in the area otherwise the fossils will be seperated or distroied. </p>
<p>you cant support either puntual equilibrum or gradualism using the fossil record, because it is only reliable in showin trends over time, not immediate changes.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com%5B/url%5D">www.darwinismrefuted.com</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.creationofuniverse.com%5B/url%5D">www.creationofuniverse.com</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.evolutiondeceit.com%5B/url%5D">www.evolutiondeceit.com</a></p>
<p>Actually, plenty of transitional fossils have been found:</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Actually, plenty of transitional fossils have been found:
[/QUOTE]
I saw this page and referred to its contents when I said that a handful of transitional fossils had been found. Twenty-one, at most, is statistically insignificant when compared to the vast number of species of plants and animals on Earth. Also, many of the cases listed are not true cases of transition. The titanothere case is microevolution, not transition between species.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
did u ever consider that the reason that there is no fossils of transitional species, is because there are no fossils. fossils usually form when an animal dies in water. also there has to be little geologic change in the area otherwise the fossils will be seperated or distroied.
[/QUOTE]
I realize that fossils are relatively rare occurences. However, given the overwhelming numbers of plants and animals that must have lived and died to provide the transition between single-celled organisms and today's organisms, there would be more fossils. Amphibians and fish both would have died in water, and there are plenty of places where the waterline has receded, leaving former sea floor exposed for excavation. However, a very small number of transitional fish have been found.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
you cant support either puntual equilibrum or gradualism using the fossil record, because it is only reliable in showin trends over time, not immediate changes.
[/QUOTE]
If this is so, then many evolutionists are in error, because the fossil record is one of their main pieces of evidence. For example, 2e on:</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I didn't read Campbell's carefully enough, but what about the Cambrian Explosion?
[/QUOTE]
That's partially to what I am referring. Where is the fossil evidence for the intermediates between the Cambrian invertebrates and the single-celled organisms that came before them?</p>
<p>Just because u cant find intermediates does not prove creationism. It's just a flaw in evolution. Read about that avida program. It clearly shows that mutations occur in spurts foolowed by long gaps where there isnt any significant change. This may be happening too. Only that we are a bit too complex to evolve in spurts. But maybe it had happened sometime.
[quote]
That's partially to what I am referring. Where is the fossil evidence for the intermediates between the Cambrian invertebrates and the single-celled organisms that came before them?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What knid of fossils do u expect single celled organisms and invertebrates to leave? Fossils are usually formed by bones of living things. At least harder parts like trunks,branches etc. Invertebrates dont even have bones. If they had any hard parts, they must be shells or something. Are there any shell fossils?</p>
<p>It's actually quite hard to form a fossil. Conditions have to be right and the composition of a species must be right to leave remains.</p>
<p>then how come there are hundreds of thousands of fossils of distinct species and none of any transitional species? why is it easier to form the fossils of the former and not the latter?</p>
<p>"Just because u cant find intermediates does not prove creationism"</p>
<p>If a "universal ancestor" did not converge to form millions of species of living organisms then that means all species were created.</p>
<p>a word about punctuated equilibrium,</p>
<p>this theory was formed in the 1970's when evolutionists realized that large populations of species could not even produce a new gene in the gene pool. The new theory states that a small number of organisms from a species was isolated for a period of time, reproduced only with each other and this "restricted population" formed new genes which led to evolution of new species.
However, a restricted population is at a disadvantage, genetically speeking. The reproduction in an isolated population leads to inbreeding which is unfavorable to the formation of new genes and actually harms variety. therefore, puntuated equilibrium cannot be a plausible mechanism for evolution.</p>