Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[SkyRock]

Explain please.

Well, you make a statement like, "then all of a sudden" when talking about macroevolution.  Are you trying to insult people?

[gwano]

I don't care what happens to my physical remains either. If I'm right and there is more I think we'll both be pleased that you were wrong. If you're right neither of us will be.

if im right we wont know the difference.
if you are right, I may be regretful

[Donzo]

Well, you make a statement like, "then all of a sudden" when talking about macroevolution.  Are you trying to insult people?

Not trying to insult anyone. 

"Then all of a sudden" in the context of the timespan the fossils appeared in relation to the "big picture".  The point being that these fossils appear in the fossil record without any transitional fossils bridging the gap between the green algae and the more complex animal fossils found around the Cambrian period.  All the major animal groups show up in the record at the same time with nothing leading up or evolving into them.

So here's another question: If things evolve, do you end up with 2 species (what was and what has evolved) or just one with the former evolving out of existence?

[gwano]

So here's another question: If things evolve, do you end up with 2 species (what was and what has evolved) or just one with the former evolving out of existence?

Evolution in the context we are discussing, occurs over millions of years. One species continually evolving over that period of time. Not two separate species. Not one evolving out of existence.

[Donzo]

Evolution in the context we are discussing, occurs over millions of years. One species continually evolving over that period of time. Not two separate species. Not one evolving out of existence.

If this is true, does a species that continually evolve "leave behind" some of itself that do not evolve or do all evolve into something new?

[gwano]

If this is true, does a species that continually evolve "leave behind" some of itself that do not evolve or do all evolve into something new?

atmospheric and environmental conditions at the time of death determine what, if any remains or traces are left behind.
animal and plant matter are actually quite fragile and tend to be obliterated quite easily. It is amazing any survive longer than 100 years. none do if exposed to the elements. Only those in extreme circumstances such as tarpits as an example.

[Donzo]

atmospheric and environmental conditions at the time of death determine what, if any remains or traces are left behind.
animal and plant matter are actually quite fragile and tend to be obliterated quite easily. It is amazing any survive longer than 100 years. none do if exposed to the elements. Only those in extreme circumstances such as tarpits as an example.

By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?

[gwano]

By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?

sorry I misunderstood.

I would think that would be possible, especially in cataclismic events such as the continents breaking apart, like stranding species on an island such as Australia, or even smaller scale but similar occurrences.

[kamilyun]

By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?

Species leave behind plenty of stuff.  Most of it shows up in the "junk" in our DNA.

Bacteria have been "left behind" by more complex critters, but they rule the planet. 

[SkyRock]

"Then all of a sudden" in the context of the timespan the fossils appeared in relation to the "big picture".  The point being that these fossils appear in the fossil record without any transitional fossils bridging the gap between the green algae and the more complex animal fossils found around the Cambrian period.

 
 No, the context you put it in occured over billions of years.  Also, the early fossils are not "complex" organisms(Sponges and tubes) and there were some of these found in the Vendian period before the cambrian.  Also the appearance of red and green algea appear early in the cambrian and blue-green algea in the pre-cambrian.  There will be more evidence as more discoveries are made.  Also, if a breakthrough by an animal was exploited, it could explain why the speedy evolution of so many other animals in such a short(40 million years) period of time exists.  Not much unlike we see with the dinosaurs as the earth warmed rich with oxygen.  The problem with discussing fossils of that period, is that they aren't easy to come by.  no telling what the earth had been through during that 2.5 billion years.

All the major animal groups show up in the record at the same time with nothing leading up or evolving into them.

No, that is not a correct statement.  There are even fossils of creatures that are combinations of two Phyla (ex. Wiwaxia)on record especially during the early cambrian.

So here's another question: If things evolve, do you end up with 2 species (what was and what has evolved) or just one with the former evolving out of existence?

As I posted earlier in the thread, there have been found species that have the same hereditory gene sequences found living still today.  It is abundant.  Not all of the former just die out, they branch.

[SkyRock]

By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?

Whales and Hippos, dogs and bears, cats and coons, tapirs and horses, is what you are looking for.  They don't just die out in most cases they branch.  Look at the primates......

[Octavius]

Donzo.  Stop.  You're not very good at debating anything.  Your argument has been settled in the very first page of this thread.

[SirLoin]

It is generaly accepted that the human race is around 200,000 years old.If there is a God,you mean to tell me he sat around for 197,000 years with folded arms and only 3,000 years ago decided"hey,it's time to intervene!?..And in the bronze age Middle East?.the news of this reaching China about a thousand years later?

And the whole notion that there cannot be morality without some sort of "supervisory celestial bully" is immoral in itself..That Moses and his followers didn't already know as they climbed up that mountain that murder,adultry,false witness and coveting thy neighbour's sheep was immoral?..it was only when God appeared and said "You gotta cut that stuff out now!" that we as a species had  morality?

[Holden McGroin]

It is generaly accepted that the human race is around 200,000 years old.

As long as you are generally not a southern baptist.

[Donzo]

Donzo.  Stop.  You're not very good at debating anything.  Your argument has been settled in the very first page of this thread.

Where?