[BenV]

But the facts are that these species exist.  As we know that their actions and physiology are determined by genes, and we know that a population's genes change over time and are subject to natural selection, we can determine that these species evolved from ancestors through a process of evolution.

Evolution explains the facts perfectly well.

No-one is ignoring the facts, except you - ignoring the fact that there is no, and can never be any evidence for your creator, so it will never be a valid explanation for how things on earth arise and thus is not a valid alternative to evolution.

[blakestyger]

Asyncritus, do not put too much reliance on fossils.
They are certainly of great value to many branches of science but a fossil can only be formed if the conditions are right. The relative number of fossils can never be an indication of the status of the animal or plant at the time.
Fossils should be regarded as one more tool in the investigative process.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Asyncritus, do not put too much reliance on fossils.
They are certainly of great value to many branches of science but a fossil can only be formed if the conditions are right. The relative number of fossils can never be an indication of the status of the animal or plant at the time.
Fossils should be regarded as one more tool in the investigative process.

Blake

There are literally hundreds of millions of fossils. Fossil formation is not the problem. The ones that have been formed in the Cambrian alone amount to over a billion, if we count the bacteria and unicells.

Darwin himself, and all evolutionists since know full well that evolution lives or dies by the fossils.

Here's Darwin:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Darwin_ever_say_that_he_was_wrong_for_coming_up_with_the_theory_of_evolution


They are the only rock-solid facts we have. There are theories aplenty, but the fossils represent the bedrock of any evolution theory, and if they contradict the theory, then it should be abandoned.

We don't have a choice really.

[atrox]

no, evolution dont live or die with the fossils and no evolutionist would say so... but in fact, they do help to support the theory, thats right.
But that doesn´t mean in reverse, that the absence of some fossils in some parts (don´t forget the the lots of fossils, intermadiate forms ands so on we do have..) proves that evolution is wrong...
because then we wouldn´t have to discuss about creation.... I never saw god or any part of him/her/it... but in your mind, that doesn´t proove your wrong...

[Asyncritus (OP)]

If the police are investigating a murder case, the first thing they look at is the corpse, and analyse it carefully.

Here we have hundreds of thousands of corpses, and not one of them says that evolution occurred. What does that prove?

That Something Else happened. What?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Your batty post did not attempt to answer my question...

My batty post? (Very funny, RD, very funny!).

But how did you say the bats evolved, and from what? And have you got any evidence?

[_Stefan_]

You just keep ignoring or refusing to accept what we say. What's the point of you posting here? You are constantly refuted, yet you return each time with posts that demonstrate your ignorance even more. Perhaps a more receptive, uncritical forum is where you should be.

Meanwhile, you still have not made a POSITIVE case for ID. Even if you proved evolution wrong, the answer is not automatically ID. It is fallacious to think that "X is wrong, therefore Y is correct".

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Come on Stefan.

You haven't refuted anything. The bats still fly and echolocate.
The yucca moth still pollinates.
The swallows still fly to Capistrano.

And so on.

Where's the 'refutation'?

Take any one of those, and refute it. I challenge you.

If the US military is copying the bat's systems, and the whale's systems of echolocation, that proves superintelligent design. The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it. They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Now what does that prove? Intelligent Design, or none at all?

.

[RD]

The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it.
They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can

Yes, engineers have been inspired by or copied nature, (Biomimicry).

Engineers have also copied evolution...

Evolutionary computation

In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.
 
Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.

On 28 July 1976, an SR-71 broke the world record for its class:
 an absolute speed record of 1905.80993 knots (2,193.1669 mph, 3,529.56 km/h)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Records

[Asyncritus (OP)]

The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it.
They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can

Yes, engineers have been inspired by or copied nature, (Biomimicry).

Engineers have also copied evolution...

So the engineers could see intelligent design, because they would  certainly not copy unintelligent design. Would you, if you were an engineer?

Evolutionary computation

In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.
 
Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

Do I need say any more?

[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.

How relevant is this to anything? I was, if you recall, talking about the echolocation system in bats and whales. Don't decontextualise me.

But here's one for you. The simplest living thing can reproduce itself. How about the military then? Have they managed that yet?

[RD]

Evolutionary computation

In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.

Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

Do I need say any more?  

The selection process in evolutionary computation is artificial not natural: the computer programmer has defined the criteria on which the partially random computer-generated prototypes will be assessed, the fittest ones being selected to "breed" from to produce successive generations, i.e. evolutionary computation is directed toward a final result by the criteria set by the programmer.
There is no such teleology in the natural selection which has created all the life on Earth: no design, no plan, the prevailing environment has selected which forms survive and reproduce.

[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.  

How relevant is this to anything? I was, if you recall, talking about the echolocation system in bats and whales. 

Ultrasound imaging equipment used to inspect metal castings, like gun barrels, uses sound frequencies which are fifty times higher than that of a bat, so will have echolocation which has a resolution fifty times better than a bat.

(Bat about 100KHz, Ultrasonic inspection apparatus 5MHz, i.e. 50x higher frequency than bat)

Laser rangefinders are far more accurate than sonar, they still use echolocation but use light instead of sound.
Laser rangefinders were used to create this music video, (sorry it's a "Radiohead" dirge).

[Asyncritus (OP)]

 []

[blakestyger]

Asyncritus, you said -

Darwin himself, and all evolutionists since know full well that evolution lives or dies by the fossils.

This is not the case. Fossils provide evidence for evolution but what about all the countless soft-bodied creatures that never made it to being a fossil and yet managed to evolve without leaving a trace other than fragments of their genomes in successive creatures further along in the evolutionary 'tree'?

Also, evolution is going on as we correspond and has been seen to occur over a number of years in the Galapagos Islands by the Grants in the 1990s; and then there's the work of Mike Majerius on the Peppered Moth that is ongoing at Cambridge.

Fossils are a useful tool, that's all.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Glad you mentioned that. I was reading Gould's Wonderful Life just today. Here's a relevant quote:

"This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the miniscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.

The Burgess Shale represents a period just after the explosion, a time when the full range of its products inhabited our seas.

These Canadian fossils are precious because they preserve in exquisite detail. down to the last filament of a trilobite's gill, or the components of the last meal in a worm's gut, the soft anatomy of organisms... hence the rare soft bodied faunas of the fossil record of the fossil record are precious windows into the true range and diversity of ancient life. The Burgess Shale is the only extensive, well-documented window upon that most crucial event in the history of animal life, the first flowering of the Cambrian explosion."

He's saying that they don't have an awful lot of soft bodied fossils, but the Burgess shale is a huge exception, and there are plenty of them there.

So I'm afraid your point is valueless.

Fossils provide no evidence for evolution, but the opposite.

[mario]

Asyncritus, your last example doesn't make much sense. Please could you be more clear.

And besides, fossil records do not neccesarily have to illustrate a gradual chain of fossils that reflect gradual change. This is a misconception.

Some changes may happen that are random and rapid. For example, the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', proposed by elderidge and gould in 1972, suggests that localised speciation events can occur in apparently stable sexually reproducing population.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Glad you mentioned Eldredge and Gould.

Those two have shot the whole idea of gradual evolution right in the horse's patoot.

They said that gradual evolution just doesn't happen - there's no fossil evidence that it does. So score 1 for the creationists.

They show very very clearly that there are huge numbers of species which just appear BANG! and with no ancestors. Score 2 for the creationists.

They show that species appear, stand still evolutionarily, and then either disappear, or remain till today. Score 3 for the creationists.

Well that only leaves mutations. Which will produce sudden advances. But that's wrong too - because 95% of mutations are destructive, and the other 5% are neutral. So what does that leave? Score 4 for the creationists.

I only recently read about Lenski's experiment. He cultivated 33,127 generations of E.coli over a period of 26 years. He wore out his prayer mat by the refrigerators praying for a new species to show up. Did it? Like hell it did. Score 5 for the creationists.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

So all told, evolution is in a very bad way, and should be discarded forthwith.

[BenV]

Well, Lenski's work did show a new species of e.coli - one that could use citrate as a food source. (not using citrate is one of the defining features of e. coli as a species)

It also showed clear evidence of evolution within the species, as later populations were better able to compete in that environment than ancestral populations.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Hi Ben

No, Lenski didn't show a new species, merely a new variant which, as you say, could metabolise citrate.

Michael Behe showed that the capacity to do that had already been there, and all that was required was activation of an already existing enzyme.

E coli remained E coli, and didn't become E lenskii!

[BenV]

Does the name really matter?  In Lenski's lab, bacteria evolved.  That's all there is to it - observable evolution through natural selection. Your creationist ideas can't explain that, or chose to ignore what it means.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Ben

It does matter. Speciation is a bottom line feature of evolution. If no new species are produced, how can evolution proceed from lower to higher orders?

Answer: it can't.

Therefore, that is why they're scratching round so desperately to find new-species production - but it just doesn't seem to happen. Lenski's desperate and prolonged effort (26 years' worth) ended in a great success for us creationists. Dobzhansky had a good go, and the nuclear effects of Chernobyl and Hiroshima and Nagasaki haven't done so either.

Lenski established what Luther Burbank said so long ago - that species have a very strong pull toward the mean, and that he couldn't transgress species limits.

So where do you go from there? Nowhere, I suggest, apart from abandonment.