Can random mutations increase fitness?

your point being because A is B and B is wrong thus A is wrong? no it is not its called a fallacy, a illogical argument: just because paleontology is not a accurate and precise science does not mean all science is also inaccurate and unprecise. Learn critical reasoning skills buddy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

However in this case molecular biology hasn't been proven to be more accurate than paleontology.

be critical of your own science buddy!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IF there is the paleontologist find anything transitional, then you are going to be running around shouting Paleontology is very accurate. But it goes against it, then you will say Paleontology is not accurate.

That is extremely good thinking. You forget the facts when they go against you, but you remember them when it is with you. complete prejudice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't get your point.

 

What facts in paleontology go against us?

 

I've already told you some before. You can do your own search. I don't have time to repeat myself. Anyways if I say anything, it will seem more like a propaganda. So do your own search. Let me point out a few, so you can start somewhere.

1. No transitional forms

2. 3.6-million-year-old human footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania.

3. The remains of a 1.7-million-year-old stone hut, found in the Olduvai Gorge region by Louis Leakey in the 1970s.

4. A 2.3 million-year-old modern human jaw found in the Hadar region of Ethiopia was very important from the point of view of showing that modern man had existed on the Earth much longer that evolutionists expected.

5. One of the oldest and most perfect human fossils is KNM-WT 1500, also known as the "Turkana Child" skeleton. The 1.6 million-year-old fossil.

6. In its December 1997 edition, Discover, one of the most popular evolutionist magazines, placed an 800,000-year-old human face on its cover, alongside a headline taken from evolutionists' surprised statement, "Is this the face of our past?" It looks COMPLETELY LIKE MODERN HUMANS.

7. Fossil called Kenyanthropus platyops puts evolutionist in further confusion.

8. the new fossil Sahelanthropus tchadensis 7million years old. Looks human-like.

These are a few. So do your own search on them. I've just given this information to you, so can start researhing a few fossil, which have given a blow to the "human evolution" concept.

 

The 8th is the most interesting because it is 7 MILLION YEARS OLD.

Here is a quote regarding that fossil

"Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable."
The Guardian, 11 July 2002

As I said, blow to the theory of evolution. This one specially to the part about missing-links.

 

I also want you to consider another thing. If you see the information I presented. You can see that Humans existed at least 1 million years ago. We are still humans. Now lets suppose that it takes 1 million years for a specie to turn into another specie. Ok. We know that there are more than 1 million species living in this world. But i'll give you people a break and just consider 1 million species. Here is the formula.

1000000 (years it takes to be a different specie) x(multiply) 1000000(species in the world) answer is 1000000000000 years.

In order all the species living in this world to become, it would need 1 trillions years.

How old is the earth? Some billion years. How could it happen in 1 trillion years? Do you see the impossiblity.

I gave you a break, for just counting 1million species. There are many more. This even makes it more impossible.

The number don't add up, if you noticed that.

 

1. thats do to a lack of fossiliation very few creatures get fossilized and only form specific areas. for example there are ~4500 speices of mammals alive today, there are only ~300 speices of dinosaurs found throught a 150million year period! this is what I mean by inaccruacy in fossil record

2. ya and there was a palotolengist that claimed to have found a humen shoe print from 400million years ago. please show us a link of this evidence.

3. Again post links to evidence, even so there were hominds back then.

4. Again post link

5. nope that was a Homo ergaster, a earlier homind. not homo sapain.

6. I would like to see that, oh ya no link.

7. Not really, does not seem to violate evolution at all: http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/platyops.html

8. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is interesting but it actually validates evolution as it was not a homo sapien, its a extinct hominid, it might change the are understand of early hominid evolution but its existence it not against evolution. http://www.bioproject.info/Subclass..._australopiths/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis.html

Understand how creatures evolved is still a processes with much discussion and discovery to come. But the act of evolution is not, evolution happens and has happened there is not ifs, and or butts about it, the prove is far to out weighing, fossil records show extinct species, species that appear to be ancestors of other species, philology shows signs of evolutions, and genetic research has tracked evolution recorded in every cell of your body.

 

As I said do your own search. Your going to consider my link as propaganda, so do your own search.

"Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable."
The Guardian, 11 July 2002

As I said, blow to the theory of evolution. This one specially to the part about missing-links.

I'm done talking about this. Do your own search

 

I have: pubmed

 

Thats not the theory of evolution (as James pointed out).

1 question for u based on your comment above:

- Do u believe that evolution is a viable theory (i.e. that it happens)?

 

There are two types of evolution it talks about. One is only through Natural Selection, which creates diversity for example many kinds of horses. Not completely different species. I believe in that, sort of.

But Species into Completely Different Species, for example bear and whale, is on shaky grounds, which is not reliable.

 

Whale evolution
on the evolution of underwater hearing in whales
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3558350.stm

origin of whales
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

It all doesn't really sound unreasonable to me.

 

Well, everyone has own way to think. You think it's reasonable when I thinks it unreasonable.

 

There is still a difference which I suspect you choose to not recognize. What we find reasonable is based on scientific data and logic.

You, I'm afraid, are advocating opinions only based on no knowledge or desire to aquire such knowledge and rely on your religious beliefs to assume something is impossible or illogical because it conflicts with your religious philosophy.

BTW, just what is your background training, occupation and age? You don't need to provide it and it is not meant to be suggestive. I, and I'm sure many here, are not qualified biologists but I believe the scientific minded and traained in any field understand and accept scientific data in a different light than those that are not so trained.

This issue goes to the accepting and understanding the scientific methodology.

 

Well, bear evolving into whale. Is not a scientific fact, but an assumption. By the way Evolution doesn't contradict my religion. So I really don't care it is true or not. But the thing is, it is extremely on shaky grounds, which I have come to known. Otherwise I have no interest in this theory.

My age is 15, I am in high school. But I have already taken biology, thus meaning I already went over the process of Evolution. And I am about to go in Chemistry.

My field is Science. I want to be a Doctor.

This information, which I presented, might make you think that you are talking to kid's without any information. But I gained interest in this and have talked to many science teachers. They all agree that this theory is more of a hypothesis than a theory. And also that this is on very shaky ground.

 

Thank you for answering my questions. I am glad that it is not religious conviction which henders your acceptance. It is the hardest impariment to overcome.

Your age however, I believe is the answer here. I do not mean that derogatorily. But at 15, even having had Highschool biology you are hardly qualified to judge the merits of the whole of science with regard to evolution. That is you are just now being introduced superficially to the subject. You have much more to learn.

Let me say to you that I happen to believe that as you mature, and assuming you continue with your interest and quest for science, your understandings and acceptance are all but assured.

Remember this: Einstein quote "A sign of intelligence is the ability to change ones mind on major issues in life" (Paraphrased).

 

I expected you to emphasize on my age that is why I said, you will judge me by my age. But you really don't know what I know. I have been taking College Biology not High School Biology. I have been talking 2 hours everyday when I go there with my Professor. After my arguments with him, he himself told me that this theory is mostly CHANCE. And has a very unlikelyness to actually be true.

But I don't expect you to believe me. I said High School, because I am in High School but that doesn't mean I can't take College Biology. There is a program in our schools that you can take college classes and get high school credits at the same time, you might of heard of it. So basically I have studied Evolution at the level of 20 to 24 year old people.