Jump to content


Photo

Punctuated Equilibrium, Gradual Evolution And Macroevolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#21 Adrian7

Adrian7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Anaheim, CA

Posted 17 November 2005 - 06:42 PM

Exactly, there will of course be some local effects in the corner of the container that must be discarded, and some of the material will dissolve, but give it some time and most will precipitate out.
Very true, but, there are small dinosaurs and also some very large mammals (all ranging in size from young to adult), the rules of decay will be consistent no matter what the animal, so for any given location you should get consistent results on size modified by the effects of decay.  This might have larger animals sinking somewhat later than there size would suggest, but it would be the same mammal and dinosaure.
A flood wont discriminate to the extent we find, dinosaurs in the Mesozoic (lower in the strata) than all but a few primitive Mammals, and no Dinosaurs above the KT boundary.

View Post

Well I dont know if reptiles and mammals would eventually sink at the same time especially mammals in colder climates or who live in the sea considering that they have large amounts of blubber, but I wont claim something as definte or likely that I have not even researched. As far as Dinosaur placement in certain strata, strata is not always stacked up in order, there are places where dinosaur bones are near the surface with no mammals on top of them and are automatically presumed to be from certain time periods also the absence of the coelocanth, wollemi pine, nightoak, neopilina mollusks, gingko tree, and "gladiator" insect from the fossil record for millions of years only to be found alive in the present indicates that the fossil record may not be a record of different times and absence may not mean a creature had not evolved yet or was extinct.

#22 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 November 2005 - 10:52 PM

Well I dont know if reptiles and mammals would eventually sink at the same time especially mammals in colder climates or who live in the sea considering that they have large amounts of blubber, but I wont claim something as definte or likely that I have not even researched.


No matter what animals are in any given locality the process would be the same, and would sort according to the laws of physics (buoyancy). Sure there will be a few exceptions but statistically what would be the difference between a lizard and a mole, a man and a velocitator, surly there would by some overlap, yes?


As far as Dinosaur placement in certain strata, strata is not always stacked up in order, there are places where dinosaur bones are near the surface with no mammals on top of them and are automatically presumed to be from certain time periods


Erosion has worn away top layers (if they were present). Not every region will have every representative layer (there are a few), only areas under the ocean (lakes, valleys) build up layers while areas exposed erode away.


also the absence of the coelocanth, wollemi pine, nightoak, neopilina mollusks, gingko tree, and "gladiator" insect from the fossil record for millions of years only to be found alive in the present indicates that the fossil record may not be a record of different times and absence may not mean a creature had not evolved yet or was extinct.


No one would ever presume that the fossil record is even close to being complete. It is a series of snapshots through time. Some animals/plants like those you mention find themselves in an environment that hardly changes, so the organisms that remain in that unchanging environment move through time oblivious to the greater changes happening around the world.

#23 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 18 November 2005 - 05:55 PM

No matter what animals are in any given locality the process would be the same, and would sort according to the laws of physics (buoyancy). Sure there will be a few exceptions but statistically what would be the difference between a lizard and a mole, a man and a velocitator, surly there would by some overlap, yes?
Erosion has worn away top layers (if they were present).  Not every region will have every representative layer (there are a few), only areas under the ocean (lakes, valleys) build up layers while areas exposed erode away.
No one would ever presume that the fossil record is even close to being complete.  It is a series of snapshots through time.  Some animals/plants like those you mention find themselves in an environment that hardly changes, so the organisms that remain in that unchanging environment move through time oblivious to the greater changes happening around the world.

View Post


So, the fossil record is catagorized not because fossil A was found in rock X but because fossil A fits it rock Z. No more wonder about why it seems to fit evolution so well. Evolutionists made the puzzel.

#24 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2005 - 06:03 PM

No one would ever presume that the fossil record is even close to being complete.  It is a series of snapshots through time.  Some animals/plants like those you mention find themselves in an environment that hardly changes, so the organisms that remain in that unchanging environment move through time oblivious to the greater changes happening around the world.



Well, the coelacanth has supposedly been around for a few hundred million years, so I guess we can lay to rest pretty much that idea that sea life had evolved at all since the coelecanth has been around..... :o

Terry

#25 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 November 2005 - 01:29 PM

So, the fossil record is catagorized not because fossil A was found in rock X but because fossil A fits it rock Z. No more wonder about why it seems to fit evolution so well. Evolutionists made the puzzel.

View Post


I’m sorry I do not understand this objection at all, could you please expand upon it.

#26 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 November 2005 - 01:34 PM

Well, the coelacanth has supposedly been around for a few hundred million years, so I guess we can lay to rest pretty much that idea that sea life had evolved at all since the coelecanth has been around..... :o

Terry

View Post


If the environment is stable, life can remain ‘static’ and give the appearance of not evolving (remembering we only have the bones). Nothing preventing the coelacanth evolving in other areas other than skeletal. Totally consistent with evolution, i.e. it’s the environment that shapes the organism.

#27 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 20 November 2005 - 09:57 PM

I’m sorry I do not understand this objection at all, could you please expand upon it.
(chance @ Nov 17 2005, 11:52 PM)
No matter what animals are in any given locality the process would be the same, and would sort according to the laws of physics (buoyancy). Sure there will be a few exceptions but statistically what would be the difference between a lizard and a mole, a man and a velocitator, surly there would by some overlap, yes?


Yes we can say they are the exceptions if we accept the evolution argument. If we do not then the inturpretation will change.

Erosion has worn away top layers (if they were present). Not every region will have every representative layer (there are a few), only areas under the ocean (lakes, valleys) build up layers while areas exposed erode away.
No one would ever presume that the fossil record is even close to being complete. It is a series of snapshots through time.

How these snapshots are organized is up to the organizer and their opinion.

Some animals/plants like those you mention find themselves in an environment that hardly changes, so the organisms that remain in that unchanging environment move through time oblivious to the greater changes happening around the world.

View Post

Maybe there actually is no great paasage of time which is as likely a reason for the lack of change in these regions. Maybe they are the norm that the rest of the record should be compared to. But it does not fit the evolution picture so is discounted as a possibility. Science adjust the picture to fit the facts. Evolution adjusts the facts to fit the picture.

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 November 2005 - 01:52 PM

Maybe there actually is no great paasage of time which is as likely a reason for the lack of change in these regions.


The core reason why it is no longer thought this way is because of the results of practical geology, there are features that just could not have been formed in any other way (long periods of time). To get these features one either accepts an old (dynamic) earth, or one is forced to accept divine origin of the features, but this leads to philosophic quandaries –i.e. The Trickster God.


Maybe they are the norm that the rest of the record should be compared to. But it does not fit the evolution picture so is discounted as a possibility.


The Old earth concept was well underway and accepted (in principle) before Darwin. Darwinian theory requires an old earth, else the ToE is falsified by that fact.

Science adjust the picture to fit the facts. Evolution adjusts the facts to fit the picture.

Just impossible to get away with a conspiracy so large as to hoodwink the entire scientific community, it would require fraud on an ultra massive and global scale, involving practical every discipline of science and education and politics.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users