View Single Post
Old 02-19-2013, 10:50 AM   #2152
Fish Fish is online now
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $2121375
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan View Post
I am sure you will find fault with any logic that doesnt support your theories and views.

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evo...without-bible/

But make no doubt about it...there will come a time when all will bow and confess before God

Interesting evidence there is a God
http://toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php
OK, just one response to address the first link, and I'll show you how wrong the first portion of the author's scientific evidence is...

The author focuses on Trilobites, a Paleozoic era arthropod. He says that these Trilobites disprove evolution, because they have no obvious ancestors and also have complex eye systems. The author questions where these arthropods came from and how they got their complex eyes. And also why there are no transitional fossils available for Trilobites.

But here's the thing...... all of that is wrong.

In a hilarious example of irony, Trilobites are actually a very good example of evolution. Trilobites themselves show a huge amount of evolution in action. And due to the way they shed their exoskeleton, and how it calcified after shedding, we have some great fossils showing the long existence and changes of Trilobites.

Truth be told, there are obvious ancestors of Trilobites. Their ancestors were from 2 groups called Crustaceomorpha and Arachnomorpha. The problem is that these ancestors lacked the calcified exoskeletons that were the reason for Trilobites being preserved so very well. That's the entire reason for their ancestors being so less evident. So their ancestors were there, they simply weren't preserved as well.

Here's a good explanation of that:
http://www.trilobites.info/triloclass.htm#arachnomorpha
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

So we have ancestors. Now let's look at the Trilobite group themselves. Trilobites lived for a long long time, in many different conditions, and were found on every continent. Because of that, there was lots and lots of evolution going on. Visibly evident evolution. So much so, that Trilobites have 10 different orders with over 20,000 scientifically recognized species. 20,000 different species of Trilobites. Doesn't that tell you something? They even adapted so that some species of Trilobites became fresh water creatures.

Over that vast time period, Trilobites changed dramatically.

Quote:
What is remarkable about trilobites is their rapid evolution and growth to adapt to the many environments presented to them in the oceans of the Paleozoic. If you compare two species, one from the early and one from the later parts of the Cambrian, the differences are numerous. Earlier trilobites are far more primitive, lacking the more advanced features such as spines and eyes.

As one moves up the column and time, the earlier, more primitive trilobites are slowly replaced by more sophisticated and diverting species. They shed segments, gained eyes and spikes, all essentially tailored to an environment where the trilobites found they could survive. Richard Fortey, in his book Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution, explains "punctuated equilibrium," a term which comes from the study of trilobites in the 1960s. Put simply, the theory holds that some species change very little over long periods of time, and then experience short spurts of intense change where one species branches out into several new ones.

Trilobites follow this pattern. The changes in trilobite species occurred gradually in regions, with no major events. But once a species diverged from another, they would endure. Further studies of trilobites have come up with similar findings, and to the scientific community, these ancient creatures are essentially a study of evolution in action.

Source with lots of references: http://io9.com/5145786/trilobites-th...earths-history
This should give you a good idea of the cool diversity of Trilobites:



That's just a response to the first point the author makes. This is meant to show you how completely inaccurate these sources are. I could present data to disprove the other portions as well, but hopefully this will be enough to give you the idea that your sources are shit.
__________________
Posts: 25,565
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote