Evolution or not?

What's your site called on Facebook, I'd like to join?

Please refrain from religious discussion Rich or I will have to ban you. Thanks for your cooperation.

A funny thing anti-evolution people never consider is this: Why does the fossil record show that species appear and dissappear if there is no evolution? You've got dinosaur fossils from a centain period (can' be bothered to google when.) Evoluton says this is because dinosaur evolved from something else (can't be bothered to google that up either), flourised for some time, and then went extinct due to natural causes.

Non-evolution people denies this. So I guess would claim that humans, sabre-tooth tigers, trilobites, dinosaurs and so on were there from the beginning of the creation of the earth. Since they dont think any new species can appear the option left is that T-Rex and humans were there together from day one.

The thing is, there just isnt space enough on earth for all the known extncts species in the fossil record plus the living. T-Rexes and all the other known enormous predators take up lotsa plase. And the theory seems silly as well.

So I guess you would want a model in which species appear and disappear in some way that isn't evolution  - maybe aliens dropping by earth and putting down new species each 100.000 years - and then disappearing because of something that isnt extinction because they dont believe in that either.

Just wondering what anti-evolution people think of this? Do they think ALL species including the fossil ones were there alltogether from day one, or do they think the species showed up and left during earth's time as the fossil record shows?

I think he did up the birth certificate.

it's not easy to convert the ignoramus', try as hard as they do.

So the old tried and failed 'woe to the deniers' fiddle is being played again :-)

A lot of people need theories to cling to, but it never seems to cover over their insecurity at facing life.

How great it would be if the whole world fell for the same mental pills. You could pretend you were secure in your science books.

Just took a break from work Alex. Yeah, that sounds about right. Radiometric dating is pretty close to that time frame give or take a couple hundred million years.

I can't believe Elroch hasn't posted here yet. Maybe he's scared of me? 😕

Another question. Do you accept that many species such as T-Rex are extinct?

I think the figure for species that have gone extinct in the past Razz is somewhere around 98%. Of course that's an estimate based on found fossils. There probably is a whole lot of fossils we haven't found. The extinction of dinosaurs was about 65-66million ya. according to most estimates.

Something happened shortly after the k/t boundary extinction of

dinosaurs Razz. Modern aves appeared on the scene within a short timeframe. Most experts agree it was less than 10 million years. Do you think that is a long enough time for random evolution to have evolved 95% of all historical birds and if yes than why haven't any aves evolved since then?

Yes. 10 million is an awful lot of generations of birds. And we know already from breeding that species can change dramatically over just some hundreds years (dogs, pigeons, horses and so on).

As far as I know, the scientists can compare 2 different genomes and then roughly calcuate when the species had a common ancestor.

If the dinosaurs were already extinct Razz, then what did these modern aves evolve from?

Generational mitochondrial comparisons can give you any time frame you want Razz for an MRCA (most recent common ancestor)depending on the type of test used and what part of the genome you compare. That's due to the high variability rate of mutations along its entire length.

For instance one can calculate an MRCA for humans

in the millions of years or thousands of years. It all comes down to the assumptions one wants to makes.

General and Philosophical Mutual Society, The

Bit of a weird name maybe

Look it up? There must be thousands of books on early evolution of birds.

Incidentally, the argument about micro and macro evolution is false because macro evolution has been shown to happen.

Yeah, saw it tv once.

Mini evolution and major evolution happened on Halley's Comet and migrated to Pluto.

Lol you think they don't know that? It's the evolutionary biologists themselves that discovered that different parts of the DNA evolves with different tempi (not very surprising really) so obviously they know it.

I dont get people that in this sort of debate will use stuff discoved by a group of scientists like some sort of "whoa they didnt think about that" kind of thing against them. Its probably old news and dealt with them 20 years ago, but surprising to you because you just recently found out about it.

Do you think they discover something and then just make dumb tests that don't take it into account?

I don't know how those tests work, but I could imagine they use several parts of the genome, maybe parts picked at random or parts where you know the change rate, plus off course test against known divergement ages to see if it works. For instance, you could compare Icelandic horses against Norwegian horses, and American horses against europeans horses and such and the test should get the correct time we know from history (1000 years and 500 years.) Dont know how they do it in practice, you can look it up.

Exactly my point Razz, you can get any time frame for an MRCA depending on the assumptions that you're looking for. Its a very subjective and assumptive process. Some of the tests that are used are controversial as to their accuracy. Just about any result can be obtained depending on your biases.