CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (https://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Nutrition (https://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Don't believe in Paleo because... (https://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=40807)

Ben Chapman 12-30-2008 10:36 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Robert Callahan;481181]So you think that we should have just as accurate a fossil record for things that died within the last 100 years as things that died millions of years ago???? I don't want to sound condescending or anything, but really? We have a great fossil record for current species because they are mostly still alive or if they recently died out have not been decaying for millions of years. All life is subject to time. The only reason we have a semi decent record of things like the dinosaurs is because of the very extreme and rare circumstances in which they became extinct. As has been said most life is 100% recycled in the environment and never seen again.

I am sorry but that is just a poor argument. It is easy to say, I will believe it when you show me the proof, and then have nothing ever be enough to satisfy you. It takes much more character and critical thought to actually look at evidence provided and give reasonable logical critiques and then when you cannot come up with anymore accept it as a reasonable theory.

-Robert[/QUOTE]

This would be a valid point if it weren't so incomplete. Let me be more clear. The current phyla that we see in the present world are well represented in the fossil record: ACROSS the entire fossil record; meaning within different supposed historical era. You have current phyla right along with the very ancient extinct phyla that are supposed to have been a previous species. The current phyla are not just found in strata from recent history, they are found among the same strata that are of a much "older" group of species. So you can tell me the current phyla are more complete just because they are more recent, but that doesn't wash with the fact that they are so complete across the entire spectrum. Do some checking. They have fossilized dinosaur footprints that have human footprints embedded within them. There are phyla that are very common today that are found with many extinct prehistoric species. The results simply aren't consistent.

You're telling the phyla of today are more prevalent in the record because they're more recent and that that the LACK of fossil records for earlier phyla is evidence that they came earlier, because there fossils didn't stick around. That simply isn't consistent with where the fossils are found.

Ben Chapman 12-30-2008 10:52 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Moran Bentzur;481216]The distinction between micro and macro evolution is made up so that non-evolution proponents can hold up their beliefs in face of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. "macro-evolution" is less obvious than "micro-evolution", even though they are one and the same.
The event that you are refering to is "speciation" (not macro-evolution). It would be silly to expect that speciation events would be so grand and different than what we see with bacteria all the time. The two species downstream to a speciation event would probably look very similar. You might not be able to differentiate between them (but they would). With enough time and adaptation the two species will continue to change until it is clear even to our eyes. Think of how a wallaby might evolve from a kangaroo. Don't expect a cat speciating from a dog.
I recommend reading the wikipedia article for "speciation". It might give you an idea of both how and why this event happens and also some examples of recorded speciation events.[/QUOTE]

This would be easier to swollow if it were more consistent. You're telling me that the distinction is made up, but I've spent enough time in the field to be able to tell you with absolute certainty that this is NOT what is taught or believed by actual professionals in the field. All of my ecology, zoology and microbiology teachers not only acknowledge a distinction between micro and Macroevolution; they teach it in the cirriculum. All of these instructors are die hard secular evolutionists. So it's nice to try and claim that the two are made up, but it's pretty inconsistent with the doctrine of the industry. It might be made up, but if it is it's made up by the pro-evolution, anti-ID doctorates of biology. Do you have you're own form of boilogy that you've found that teaches it differently?

In an ecological and zoological sense, Microevolution is widely accepted as those variations that are observable within populations. That is, they happen INTRAspecies, that is, the variations of sparrows, stay within sparrows. These variations are observable and have been easily documented ad naseum. MACROevolution is the variation INTERspecies, that is the speciation - or jump - from one form to another. i.e. the creation of a new class or genetically independent species that now interbreeds as it's own species. This evolution has NOT BEEN OBSERVED anywhere in current nature. there are plenty of microevolution variations among the same species occuring all around us, but the larger variations of macroevolution are only touted by interpolated and supposed stratification of the fossil record. The problem, as I've stated before, is that the many thousands of intermediaries required for such variations are incredibly poorly represented in the records themselves. Even on this forum the best I've been able to get people to come up with is the archaeopteryx, ONE single example that's been touted as the missing link for decades. For my money with that kind of consistency, the archaeopteryx could just as easily be a freaky kind of bird that became extinct because it no longer had a niche to fill. But that's another arguement for another day. The main point is that the idea of differentiation between micro and macro evolution is something that is widely accepted and taught in the biological community among professiing evolutionists and to deny it is to doubt the very community you're trying to defend. Kind of ironic.

Ben Chapman 12-30-2008 11:02 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Robert Callahan;481181]
It takes much more character and critical thought to actually look at evidence provided and give reasonable logical critiques and then when you cannot come up with anymore accept it as a reasonable theory.

-Robert[/QUOTE]

Really? Questioning the party line and challenging the widely accepted assertions of professionals calls my CHARACTER and INTELLECT into question? I had honestly thought we'd get through this thread avoiding thinly veiled insults and ad hominim.

Part of the reason I'm a crossfitter is because I question the widely accepted dogma of many professionals... I don't think I'm the only one either.

Matthew Stafford 12-30-2008 11:15 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481719]Really? Questioning the party line...[/QUOTE]

Actually, there have been a number of polls over the years that show belief in Creationism without evolution is more common than a belief in evolution. So, you -are- the party line :D

That said, I've been impressed with how this thread has gone for the most part and am very glad you started it.

Ben Chapman 12-30-2008 11:18 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
And pardon me if I don't go to wikipedia for this type of information.

Ben Chapman 12-30-2008 11:21 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Matthew Stafford;481730]Actually, there have been a number of polls over the years that show belief in Creationism without evolution is more common than a belief in evolution. So, you -are- the party line :D

That said, I've been impressed with how this thread has gone for the most part and am very glad you started it.[/QUOTE]

That's probably true within the general populous, but I can say with utmost certainty that among the professional scientific community, I am most certainly NOT the party line. It all depends on how you look at it...

David Reed 12-30-2008 11:22 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481701]They have fossilized dinosaur footprints that have human footprints embedded within them. [/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that was a hoax

[url]http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm[/url] [WFS]

Not trying to derail the topic or anything...

Matthew Stafford 12-30-2008 11:27 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481734]That's probably true within the general populous, but I can say utmost certainty that among the professional scientific community, I am most certainly not the party line. It all depends on how you look at it...[/QUOTE]

Completely true. This site [URL="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm[/URL] (SFW) has some neat information about the breakdown among the general population, scientists as well as recent trends. I'm not sure on the accuracy, but the polls are referenced to major organizations (Gallup, etc.).

Shawn Casey 12-30-2008 11:34 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Matthew Stafford;481730]Actually, there have been a number of polls over the years that show belief in Creationism without evolution is more common than a belief in evolution. So, you -are- the party line :D

That said, I've been impressed with how this thread has gone for the most part and am very glad you started it.[/QUOTE]


Since we're not talking about religion here, how many believe in creationism without some sort interference from a higher being? Since we're talking science instead of religion, you're going to have to take all those stats out.

Ben Chapman 12-30-2008 11:40 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=David Reed;481735]I'm pretty sure that was a hoax

[url]http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm[/url] [WFS]

Not trying to derail the topic or anything...[/QUOTE]

I just read the site and I think it's just as inconclusive as it is conclusive. He admits throughout that they don't know. so he's saying they can't prove they weren't a hoax, but nor can he prove that they were. I am also thinking of a different print that when they originally uncovered the tracks, was found upon immediate removal of the first limestone layer. The print was found inside the dinosaur print, not next to it, os unless someone snuck under the first bed of limestone to carve it, then it was there before they even knew about the tracks. Nova was there doing a documentary and turned their cameras off when they found it. I'll have to look up the details on that one.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.