Jump to content


Photo

Not All Science Is The Same


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 July 2017 - 03:15 AM

Its very noticeable Blitzking is that all you are capable of is firing little pea shooters at evolution with tired misrepresentations and cherry picking while ignoring the massive volume of evidence against you're position.

 

For instance, I sunk your hydrologic sorting nonsense idea for the patterns we see in the fossil record and you have absolutely no response. You are incapable of supplying positive evidence for your own belief and are only interested in throwing mud at evolution.



#22 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 July 2017 - 03:05 AM

Its very noticeable Blitzking is that all you are capable of is firing little pea shooters at evolution with tired misrepresentations and cherry picking while ignoring the massive volume of evidence against you're position.
 
For instance, I sunk your hydrologic sorting nonsense idea for the patterns we see in the fossil record and you have absolutely no response. You are incapable of supplying positive evidence for your own belief and are only interested in throwing mud at evolution.



If THIS Is a "little pea shooter" I wouldn't want to see what you consider to be an atom bomb... As you ran away and avoided trying to answer it because if you HONESTLY (And that is the key) look at it, It is a lethal dagger in the Heart of AbioDarwinism... And everyone reading this thread knows it..

http://evolutionfair...accidentalists/

#23 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 July 2017 - 01:17 PM

Wibble, to be honest I'm not quite sure that this topic really concerns the rock record and you're trying to make the topic about that because it's your fave subject.

You said the nature of strong science is repeating the test thousands of times and getting the same answer. I pointed out that that is exactly what happens when we search for fossils in the sedimentary layers and don't find things that shouldn't be there according to evolution. The alternative reasons posited by creationists such as the hydrological sorting that Blitzking seems to think explains it are intellectually bankrupt.
 

One point your comments do highlight is the fact that we can't go back in time and see which one it was, deposition or slow accumulation.

We can't, and that is what creationists hide behind. However, we can look at sedimentary features and rule out things like a global flood. For instance, you are forced to believe that hundreds of metres depth of chalk rock, which is composed almost entirely of tiny plates from algal cells (coccoliths), was deposited in a few weeks or months, which is physically and biologically impossible. You can't claim it was scooped up by water currents from a larger area and dumped because you wouldn't have benthic (sea bed dwelling) organisms like sea urchins present throughout the record (and also showing an evolutionary sequence) because macrofossils would settle quickly with the chalk sediment settling gradually on top.
 
 

CONCLUSION: The on-topic conclusion is that it is very clear these latter sciences can be tested but that the rocks can't. Ultimately we can't repeat the event that laid them down

Sticking with chalk, you could set up experimental tanks with coccolithophores and manipulate temperature and nutrients etc. and you will never achieve the metres of deposition per day your model demands.
 

The amount of transitionals we have argued elsewhere. Mathematically it's provable that 99.999% of them MUST be missing, which even evolutionary scientists would be forced to agree with and acknowledge. You yourself contradict yourself by arguing stasis and asking me what P.E means. You can't have both. If you claim P.E that is a tacit admission the transitionals aren't there because P.E. is argued based on a lack of them by Gould and Eldridge, and if you argue transitionals are there why then are you arguing P.E.?

:rolleyes:  Looks like I need to quote Gould again:Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups
 
 

:gotcha:

As usual, far too premature on the "gotcha". Is there an egg on face emoji ?
 

P.E. admits to the lack of transitional intermediates. Can you for example, show the intermediate transitional lineages for these please; (of course this doesn't include extinct species which have no transitionals either, such as the ichthyosaur, pterosaurs, pterodactls, trilobites, various insects that seem to appear from nowhere with no history, and all of the dinosaur kinds which also have no transitionals for them.
I have also highlighted one of them because it pertains to a challenge you made in your post.

You expect me to trawl through that lot ?
I knew you would bring up the Roraima pollen again. It actually shows how weak your case is that you have to keep going back to this single example. You call it a watertight case, I disagree. The pollen grains could have entered via microfissures in the rock or introduced at the time of sampling. The fact that the rock is metamorphic but despite this the pollen grains were fresh looking and typical of plants in the local area would support a modern origin. An in situ fossil of an actual plant would be far more impressive evidence.


"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups"

Back to this again? I swear that Evolutionists have the WORST memories of any group of people on the planet...

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record, but merely "Micro" Evolution which has been pointed out to you over and over and over again is NOT really "Evolution" at all but merely a bait and switch marketing ploy to describe Adaptation and Variation..


"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."

(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

#24 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 July 2017 - 04:01 PM

 

Its very noticeable Blitzking is that all you are capable of is firing little pea shooters at evolution with tired misrepresentations and cherry picking while ignoring the massive volume of evidence against you're position.
 
For instance, I sunk your hydrologic sorting nonsense idea for the patterns we see in the fossil record and you have absolutely no response. You are incapable of supplying positive evidence for your own belief and are only interested in throwing mud at evolution.



If THIS Is a "little pea shooter" I wouldn't want to see what you consider to be an atom bomb... As you ran away and avoided trying to answer it because if you HONESTLY (And that is the key) look at it, It is a lethal dagger in the Heart of AbioDarwinism... And everyone reading this thread knows it..

http://evolutionfair...accidentalists/

 

 
 How is not knowing the details of which precursor of which organ evolved first and whether any of it happened in tandem a "lethal dagger" to the mainstream view ? Dream on mate. You have had plenty of response on that topic but you aren't interested in constructive debate.
 
How's your thoughts on hydrologic sorting ? Intellectually satisfying ?  :lol:
 
 

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups"

Back to this again? I swear that Evolutionists have the WORST memories of any group of people on the planet...

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record, but merely "Micro" Evolution which has been pointed out to you over and over and over again is NOT really "Evolution" at all but merely a bait and switch marketing ploy to describe Adaptation and Variation..


No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution.

 

I don't think it is my memory that is at fault, it is your basic understanding. Show me that I am wrong.



#25 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:58 PM

 

Wibble quoting Gould: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups

 
You can't just SAY they are abundant, you have to show it. You can't, because they don't exist.

 


There you go again saying transitionals don’t exist.

 

https://en.wikipedia...itional_fossils

 

 

Gould formulated his P.E. theory because he does admit that arrival + stasis is the general theme in the record. But even he can't avoid the fact that to go from being a land-walking mammal to a bat, you have to go through transitional stages. Same for an Ichthyosaur, a sea reptile, same for pterosaurs, pterodactyls, butterflies, these aren't changes as a species-level, they are changes between walking and flying. There are no bat species which can't fly. There are no Ichthyosaur species which can walk. So Gould's comment is wrong, because he isn't as clever because it's not at a species level the transitions are missing, but at the larger level. Or can you show transitionals for creatures between, for these organisms? Can you show transitions between quadruped and arboreal (apes)? Van you show transitions of insects that were evolving wings, or evolving eyes?


You know very well that we have fossils that show intermediate features between larger groups, and that show up in the fossil record at the right time, but for no reason other than your prejudice they are rejected. Evolutionary theory predicted that fish- tetrapod ancestors would be found in Upper Devonian rocks of freshwater sedimentary origin. Shubin et al looked at the geological map and found such a location on Ellesmere island in the Canadian Arctic. After much searching, lo and behold, they found Tiktaalik. You ought to be impressed by this fulfillment of an evolutionary prediction but you have programmed yourself not to be.

Yes, punctuated equilibria was proposed because of the observation that fossil species generally remain unchanged or at least have non directional change for long periods of time in the fossil record (5 or 10 million years, something like that). Then there is a sudden appearance of a related but different species at the next level in the strata.

The argument goes that a large population in a stable environment is unlikely to evolve into something else (because of unrestricted gene flow) but it is peripheral small populations of the species in sub optimal environments that will be under pressure to evolve with the end result being that that sub optimal environment becomes optimal to the new species. It is very unlikely that this evolutionary spurt in the local population will be recorded in the fossil record. If later on the new species disperses into the ancestral species’ range and replaces that species, in the fossil record it would appear as if a sudden change had taken place (remember the sedimentary record is not a continuous record, there are many gaps and breaks, and even if a fossil forms it is very unlikely to be found or avoid destruction through time)

As an analogy, imagine in a million years time we looked at the sedimentary record in England for squirrel fossils in a layer spanning our current times, it would appear as if our native red squirrel was suddenly replaced by the American Grey (an invasive), rather than a gradual replacement.

With your oft repeated argument about lack of pre bats etc., and using bats as the example, what you are missing is that they are an incredibly diverse group of mammals that are found on every continent bar Antarctica. In fact I have given you a fairly detailed response to this before but you ignored it. With your lack of pre bats fossil argument you assume that that the bat ancestor was equally as widespread, abundant and diverse as bats themselves. Like a wide trunk of species gradually evolving into an equally wide trunk of bat species. Why should that be the case ? Look at it this way: the bat ancestor was some insectivore mammal species inhabiting a region with poor fossil preservation potential, such as a forest. It gradually evolved leaping, gliding, eventually flying capabilities. This stem species was then open to many different niches so it diversified into the wide range we see today and since the Eocene (when the earliest bat fossil has been found – funny how they are never found fossilised with pterodactyls or Mesozoic birds). We now find a small number of fossils of this widespread group in local specific strata.

Did you know that only three specimens of fossilised fruit bats have ever been found ? Why do you think it likely that we should find an example of it’s non flying ancestor ?



#26 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 July 2017 - 01:11 AM

Its very noticeable Blitzking is that all you are capable of is firing little pea shooters at evolution with tired misrepresentations and cherry picking while ignoring the massive volume of evidence against you're position.

For instance, I sunk your hydrologic sorting nonsense idea for the patterns we see in the fossil record and you have absolutely no response. You are incapable of supplying positive evidence for your own belief and are only interested in throwing mud at evolution.

If THIS Is a "little pea shooter" I wouldn't want to see what you consider to be an atom bomb... As you ran away and avoided trying to answer it because if you HONESTLY (And that is the key) look at it, It is a lethal dagger in the Heart of AbioDarwinism... And everyone reading this thread knows it..http://evolutionfair...accidentalists/

How is not knowing the details of which precursor of which organ evolved first and whether any of it happened in tandem a "lethal dagger" to the mainstream view ? Dream on mate. You have had plenty of response on that topic but you aren't interested in constructive debate.

How's your thoughts on hydrologic sorting ? Intellectually satisfying ? :lol:


"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups"
Back to this again? I swear that Evolutionists have the WORST memories of any group of people on the planet...
He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record, but merely "Micro" Evolution which has been pointed out to you over and over and over again is NOT really "Evolution" at all but merely a bait and switch marketing ploy to describe Adaptation and Variation..

No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution.

I don't think it is my memory that is at fault, it is your basic understanding. Show me that I am wrong.


"How is not knowing the details of which precursor of which organ evolved first and whether any of it happened in tandem a "lethal dagger" to the mainstream view ? Dream on mate"


Nice editorial.... I NEVER claim that "Not knowing the details" is a problem for Abiodarwinism.. I ALWAYS claim that the problem is the REFUSAL / INABILITY / UNWILLINGNESS to provide a PLAUSIBLE, FEASABLE, OR CONCEIVABLE ORDER for the 10 VITAL Interdependent Interlocked organs of Man OR his hypothetical "Ancestor(s)... And you already know this as you asked the "Expert" Andy who wrote the Book and he basically laughed in your face and said you dont need any "Order" and Creationists wont Believe any "Order" Anyway (Remember the Answer the Catholic Priest gave for Transubstanciation?) I asked you to just try to ask him to give a POSSIBLE "Order" ANYWAY, But you refused as you know deep down inside where this will end and you DONT WANT IT TO END because of a deep emotional attachment you have to AbioDarwinism somehow being true (even though we are talking Octillions to one against it) for Philosophical reasons only.. Remember

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
R Dawkins


"You have had plenty of response on that topic but you aren't interested in constructive debate."

Plenty of response??? Anything MEANINGFUL? I am sorry, I must have missed it... Constructive debate?? With WHO? Dr Andy? I asked for a POSSIBLE Order, Got Ridiculed as being biased because I wouldnt accept ANY order and turned down as a result and therefore I dont want Constructive debate??

"How's your thoughts on hydrologic sorting ?"

Worring about hydrologic sorting not explaining "evolution" well enough
is like straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel of Man's Organ Evolution, But I understand your interest in getting away from that as much as possible...

Here is a website that explains Hydrologic Sorting and Liquefaction in a lot more detail.. If you have a problem with it. Let me know what your problem is and I will try to contact them and get an answer..
Do you suppose that they will give the Priest's answer of No evidence would convince an AbioDarwinist? You seemed to think that was a perfectly acceptable "Answer" when old Andy tried to bamboozle you with it.. LOL

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record

"No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution."

You need to "Recheck" it then.. Why would he even bother to make such a nonsensical declaration in trying to defend THIS previous statements otherwise????? That makes ZERO sense..

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

??????????????

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

#27 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 July 2017 - 01:22 AM

Wibble quoting Gould: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups

 
You can't just SAY they are abundant, you have to show it. You can't, because they don't exist.
There you go again saying transitionals don’t exist.
 
https://en.wikipedia...itional_fossils
 
 

Gould formulated his P.E. theory because he does admit that arrival + stasis is the general theme in the record. But even he can't avoid the fact that to go from being a land-walking mammal to a bat, you have to go through transitional stages. Same for an Ichthyosaur, a sea reptile, same for pterosaurs, pterodactyls, butterflies, these aren't changes as a species-level, they are changes between walking and flying. There are no bat species which can't fly. There are no Ichthyosaur species which can walk. So Gould's comment is wrong, because he isn't as clever because it's not at a species level the transitions are missing, but at the larger level. Or can you show transitionals for creatures between, for these organisms? Can you show transitions between quadruped and arboreal (apes)? Van you show transitions of insects that were evolving wings, or evolving eyes?

You know very well that we have fossils that show intermediate features between larger groups, and that show up in the fossil record at the right time, but for no reason other than your prejudice they are rejected. Evolutionary theory predicted that fish- tetrapod ancestors would be found in Upper Devonian rocks of freshwater sedimentary origin. Shubin et al looked at the geological map and found such a location on Ellesmere island in the Canadian Arctic. After much searching, lo and behold, they found Tiktaalik. You ought to be impressed by this fulfillment of an evolutionary prediction but you have programmed yourself not to be.
Yes, punctuated equilibria was proposed because of the observation that fossil species generally remain unchanged or at least have non directional change for long periods of time in the fossil record (5 or 10 million years, something like that). Then there is a sudden appearance of a related but different species at the next level in the strata.
The argument goes that a large population in a stable environment is unlikely to evolve into something else (because of unrestricted gene flow) but it is peripheral small populations of the species in sub optimal environments that will be under pressure to evolve with the end result being that that sub optimal environment becomes optimal to the new species. It is very unlikely that this evolutionary spurt in the local population will be recorded in the fossil record. If later on the new species disperses into the ancestral species’ range and replaces that species, in the fossil record it would appear as if a sudden change had taken place (remember the sedimentary record is not a continuous record, there are many gaps and breaks, and even if a fossil forms it is very unlikely to be found or avoid destruction through time)
As an analogy, imagine in a million years time we looked at the sedimentary record in England for squirrel fossils in a layer spanning our current times, it would appear as if our native red squirrel was suddenly replaced by the American Grey (an invasive), rather than a gradual replacement.
With your oft repeated argument about lack of pre bats etc., and using bats as the example, what you are missing is that they are an incredibly diverse group of mammals that are found on every continent bar Antarctica. In fact I have given you a fairly detailed response to this before but you ignored it. With your lack of pre bats fossil argument you assume that that the bat ancestor was equally as widespread, abundant and diverse as bats themselves. Like a wide trunk of species gradually evolving into an equally wide trunk of bat species. Why should that be the case ? Look at it this way: the bat ancestor was some insectivore mammal species inhabiting a region with poor fossil preservation potential, such as a forest. It gradually evolved leaping, gliding, eventually flying capabilities. This stem species was then open to many different niches so it diversified into the wide range we see today and since the Eocene (when the earliest bat fossil has been found – funny how they are never found fossilised with pterodactyls or Mesozoic birds). We now find a small number of fossils of this widespread group in local specific strata.
Did you know that only three specimens of fossilised fruit bats have ever been found ? Why do you think it likely that we should find an example of it’s non flying ancestor ?


"You know very well that we have fossils that show intermediate features between larger groups, and that show up in the fossil record at the right time,"

Oh yes... They happend to show up at just the "Right Time" didnt they?

Here is a good song that reminds me of that Philosophy..




THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING


"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

So evolution happens....

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 July 2017 - 02:50 AM

 

 

Wibble: As an analogy, imagine in a million years time we looked at the sedimentary record in England for squirrel fossils in a layer spanning our current times, it would appear as if our native red squirrel was suddenly replaced by the American Grey (an invasive), rather than a gradual replacement.
With your oft repeated argument about lack of pre bats etc., and using bats as the example, what you are missing is that they are an incredibly diverse group of mammals that are found on every continent bar Antarctica. In fact I have given you a fairly detailed response to this before but you ignored it. With your lack of pre bats fossil argument you assume that that the bat ancestor was equally as widespread, abundant and diverse as bats themselves. Like a wide trunk of species gradually evolving into an equally wide trunk of bat species. Why should that be the case ? Look at it this way: the bat ancestor was some insectivore mammal species inhabiting a region with poor fossil preservation potential, such as a forest. It gradually evolved leaping, gliding, eventually flying capabilities. This stem species was then open to many different niches so it diversified into the wide range we see today and since the Eocene (when the earliest bat fossil has been found – funny how they are never found fossilised with pterodactyls or Mesozoic birds

 

This is the problem Wibble, you don't undertstand logic and critical thinking to a high level so you tend to just dismiss it and carry on arguing the same things.

 

Even if we suppose your scenario is true, to expect the same scenario for each type I mentioned but to name a few, where you get their fossils but never their ancestors, would be to argue a double standard fallacy called special pleading. 

 

Yes we've argued it before but the difference is I remember all of the incredibly significant logical rules you forget. One of them being that you are arguing the non-existence of certain forms is expected but you don't argue it's not expected we find fossils of what they allegedly evolved into. Can't you stop and think that through for a moment; "hang, on, so I am arguing all of the non-evolution of these completed forms is to be expected from evolution but no evolution would expect to be found such as pre-bats...but isn't that the opposite of what evolution should argue?"

 

For a theory to predict it's own lack of evidence by explaining that we should instead find nothing except things that have already completely evolved, seems rather desperate to me. So what you can't see is that is actually the correct logical prediction for creation/kinds, not evolution. It's evolution that said we evolved, and creation that said we didn't, remember.

 

That is the key problem and it doesn't change - that in the rocks we can find jellyfish, we can find bats, we can find octopus, we can find pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, what we can never find is their ancestors. The problem is even "old" species like a pterodactyl, are complete fliers already. No matter what stage of the record you look into you can place a million pound bet that the organism you find will already be a viable flier, or a viable swimmer, and will never be something evolving into a flier or swimmer. So for all the fliers you could plot different stages of history they evolved flight, but you will only find complete versions of them in the fossil record. You will only find the "completely evolved" stage, because the truth is, they didn't evolve, which is why they are all complete, like the bible says they should be.

 

Conclusion; Can you still argue conjecturally, as you are now, in weak science, by for example, forever arguing, "there may be a way they existed but were never recorded." Sure, as it pertains to this topic, that is the beauty of historical science. Technically you can always appeal to some unknown factor, but you would never appeal to me on behalf of oxygen or germs, you would never say, "Mike, somehow germs don't exist. Mike, somehow linear momentum and centripetal force don't exist and I promise this time the bus takes the tight corner at 90mph, I give you my solemn word it will hold the corner. Mike, people are falling into space on the other side of the world because they're upside down."

 

So that's what I'm arguing in this topic. Not fossils and rocks. I'm arguing that it's very obvious that with strong science, operational science, those things are basically proven. Yes, there will always be a pedantic hair-splitter that says, "nothing is proven", but if he says that then his own statement is also not proven. 

 

So you have to ask yourself; sure, you can explain how pre-bats may have existed somehow, but if you are honest you have the same evidence for their existence as the spaghetti monster so why should mike believe it? What does mike see, and what has mike studied? Because what I see is the direct and expected evidence in nature of the intelligent designer, and I can actually go through all of those features of design in life, giving examples for every feature which directly match.

 

So I see all of the direct evidence I would expect to see if God created the creatures, but no convincing evidence of evolution. You can spin a tall tale about how somehow evolution is missing in action, but that doesn't satisfy me. Evolution is a big claim, to back it up only with just so stories isn't impressive to me, even if it is sufficient for your own standards.



#29 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 July 2017 - 03:15 AM

 

 

Some of the animals in the Messel Pit are extinct, and others are pretty much like those we have today. Some, like pygmy horses, are small species of familiar animal kinds. Others are examples of now-extinct gigantic species—megafauna—such as a giant cockroach and a giant ant. There is an extinct three-foot-long squirrel-like mammal called Ailuravus macrurus—hailed by evolutionists as an example of convergent evolution because it looks like a big squirrel but doesn’t fit into the evolutionary lineage proposed for squirrel. (You can learn more about megafauna in “Why Were the Animals So Big?”) There are also modern-appearing hedgehogs and mice, frogs and turtles in Messel Pit. There are bats with the same impressive specializations as today’s bats.

https://answersingen...ssil-graveyard/

 

 

 

Scientists have found the fossils of a new bat species in New Zealand that walked on four limbs at least 16 million years ago, LiveScience reports. The bat (Mystacina miocenalis) was three times larger than the average modern bat, and it is similar to the living New Zealand lesser short-tailed bat (Mystacina tuberculata, seen above). The discovery, published in PLOS ONE, means that the bats have had a much longer evolutionary history in the country than was thought, raising questions about when the creatures first arrived from present-day Australia, researchers say. Previously, the most ancient Mystacina fossil in New Zealand was just 17,500 years old.

https://www.sciencem...sils-discovered

 

See it's always the same, notice they found this type of bat much, much earlier than expected, a type of bat, but they didn't find it's transitionals. That is always the case, they always find organisms earlier and earlier, as complete organisms but NEVER find a transitional ancestor to them.

Here is a diagram I made showing how some organisms have been pushed back like the science article says;

 

Those labelled in red is where they are now found in the fossils without any transitionals, and the ones in bubble-wrap are organisms pushed back from a period younger than the Cretacious;

 

[attachment=1597:wib.jpg]

 

In other words - the prediction "you will find them earlier but never will find them evolving", pretty much always comes to pass. As a prediction, it is what we would expect to find if evolution is false, that we could find organisms much earlier which "break" the pattern they thought evolution had given them for that species, but you never find any evidence of any actual macro evolution. 

 

The prediction for evolution if it was true, would be the opposite. That we find their evolution, and not just find the same completed form, only earlier.

 

The creation prediction wins every time. For we wouldn't expect to find any evolutionary transitions if there was no evolution, and indeed we don't......ever.



#30 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 09 July 2017 - 03:24 PM

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record

"No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution."

You need to "Recheck" it then.. Why would he even bother to make such a nonsensical declaration in trying to defend THIS previous statements otherwise????? That makes ZERO sense..

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

??????????????


Since you claimed Gould wasn't referring to macroevolution with "larger groups" - say birds, or tetrapods for example, I wanted you to provide some substantiation to that assertion, not a repeat of your blind opinion.

 

What Gould was saying is very clear, and you are very confused. Let's ask Mike. What do you reckon Mike ? Was Gould referring to the kind of transitions that will be listed in that wiki link I showed you, or was he referring to "microevolution"



#31 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:48 PM

So I see all of the direct evidence I would expect to see if God created the creatures, but no convincing evidence of evolution. You can spin a tall tale about how somehow evolution is missing in action, but that doesn't satisfy me. Evolution is a big claim, to back it up only with just so stories isn't impressive to me, even if it is sufficient for your own standards.

you are correct mike.
the 2 key aspects of evolution is missing the data that verifies them.
the 2 aspects i refer to are abiogenesis and the arrival of animal phyla
funny thing is, these are exactly the areas that god proclaims is his doing.

i also believe like mike, you can spin this until you run out of yarn, it isn't going to change the above facts.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#32 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:49 PM

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record

"No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution."

You need to "Recheck" it then.. Why would he even bother to make such a nonsensical declaration in trying to defend THIS previous statements otherwise????? That makes ZERO sense..

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

??????????????


Since you claimed Gould wasn't referring to macroevolution with "larger groups" - say birds, or tetrapods for example, I wanted you to provide some substantiation to that assertion, not a repeat of your blind opinion.
 
What Gould was saying is very clear, and you are very confused. Let's ask Mike. What do you reckon Mike ? Was Gould referring to the kind of transitions that will be listed in that wiki link I showed you, or was he referring to "microevolution"

gould didn't "believe in" gradualism, that's for sure.

#33 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 July 2017 - 07:27 PM

 

 

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record

"No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution."

You need to "Recheck" it then.. Why would he even bother to make such a nonsensical declaration in trying to defend THIS previous statements otherwise????? That makes ZERO sense..

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

??????????????


Since you claimed Gould wasn't referring to macroevolution with "larger groups" - say birds, or tetrapods for example, I wanted you to provide some substantiation to that assertion, not a repeat of your blind opinion.
 
What Gould was saying is very clear, and you are very confused. Let's ask Mike. What do you reckon Mike ? Was Gould referring to the kind of transitions that will be listed in that wiki link I showed you, or was he referring to "microevolution"

 

gould didn't "believe in" gradualism, that's for sure.

 

 

"G

 

 

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record

"No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution."

You need to "Recheck" it then.. Why would he even bother to make such a nonsensical declaration in trying to defend THIS previous statements otherwise????? That makes ZERO sense..

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

??????????????


Since you claimed Gould wasn't referring to macroevolution with "larger groups" - say birds, or tetrapods for example, I wanted you to provide some substantiation to that assertion, not a repeat of your blind opinion.

 

What Gould was saying is very clear, and you are very confused. Let's ask Mike. What do you reckon Mike ? Was Gould referring to the kind of transitions that will be listed in that wiki link I showed you, or was he referring to "microevolution"

 

 

"Gould didn't "believe in" gradualism, that's for sure."

 

For a good reason.. The Evidence shows STASIS..

 

So Goulds choice was to abandon the religion of Metaphysical Naturalism and admit that he was created by God..

 

OR

 

Invent a ridiculous rescue hypothesis like has been done many times to "explain away" the facts  so it can continue

to be indoctrinated to gullible kids in Biology class and the State run religion of Secular Humanism can continue to

be promoted... so he was forced to came up with PE...  :burp: 

 

 

 

Consequently, Darwinism will not die while ever there are atheists wanting to be ‘intellectually respectable’. Darwinism / evolution has come to mean simply ‘naturalistic (that is, Creator-less) origins theory’. Since in the minds of Dawkins, Gould and co. there is no Creator in the real world, then ‘evolution’ (naturalism) is a fact.

Gould and Eldredge provided an escape route from the evidence against the normal gradualist concept of evolution—PE. As they said in their 1993 review, they gave ‘theoretical space’ to stasis and abrupt appearance. Long argued by creationists as evidence against evolution, stasis and abrupt appearance now became the evidence for evolution by PE! So how can evolution be refuted in the minds of its proponents? It can’t. If a series of fossils showing transformation can be found,13then this is claimed as evidence for ‘evolution’ (gradualism), but if such cannot be found, then this is also claimed as evidence for ‘evolution’ (PE). ‘Heads we [evolutionists] win; tails you [creationists] lose’!

Gould’s writings have encouraged many creationists. It’s nice that stasis and abrupt appearance, the actual data of the fossils, have been given ‘theoretical space’ by a prominent evolutionist. If it were not for the growth of the modern creation movement, many other evolutionists might have joined with Gould and Eldredge in facing up to the data. Initially some did, such as Vrba and Stanley. That’s much less likely since 1981. Darwinian fundamentalists like Dawkins (a non-paleontologist) continue to refuse to allow the fossil evidence to speak. As a biologist, Dawkins made his reputation on just-so story-telling for the slow-and-gradual neo-Darwinian myth. He probably also realizes that the information problem in living things is difficult enough to solve in neo-Darwinism, but it would be impossible with PE, so he fights the fossil experts such as Gould who would rock the boat (see also this critique of Dawkins’ attempt to solve the information problem).

It seems that the real data of the fossils has once again been pushed into the background. It just fits the Creation / Flood teaching of the Bible too well.



#34 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 July 2017 - 07:32 PM

 

He is explaining that we DONT see "Macro" Evolution in the fossil record

"No he was not. I haven't checked this but my understanding is that by "larger groups" he means higher taxonomic level (as in higher than species). I am certain he was not referring to "micro" evolution."

You need to "Recheck" it then.. Why would he even bother to make such a nonsensical declaration in trying to defend THIS previous statements otherwise????? That makes ZERO sense..

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

??????????????


Since you claimed Gould wasn't referring to macroevolution with "larger groups" - say birds, or tetrapods for example, I wanted you to provide some substantiation to that assertion, not a repeat of your blind opinion.

 

What Gould was saying is very clear, and you are very confused. Let's ask Mike. What do you reckon Mike ? Was Gould referring to the kind of transitions that will be listed in that wiki link I showed you, or was he referring to "microevolution"

 

 

Yes, you are correct.. The situation is even worse than I thought.. He actually had to claim that there is no "Slow" change but only "Rapid" change which weakens the hypothetical hypothesis even more! (As If it were possible)

When can we just Throw the dead dogs carcass of AbioDarwinism in the Trash and just be honest that God DOES Exist and there only be 2 groups of people.. God Lovers and God Haters..  Why continue with the dog and pony show?

 

evolution-happening-in-lab.jpg



#35 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 July 2017 - 02:22 PM

 

Since you claimed Gould wasn't referring to macroevolution with "larger groups" - say birds, or tetrapods for example, I wanted you to provide some substantiation to that assertion, not a repeat of your blind opinion.
 
What Gould was saying is very clear, and you are very confused. Let's ask Mike. What do you reckon Mike ? Was Gould referring to the kind of transitions that will be listed in that wiki link I showed you, or was he referring to "microevolution"

 
Yes, you are correct.. The situation is even worse than I thought.. He actually had to claim that there is no "Slow" change but only "Rapid" change which weakens the hypothetical hypothesis even more! (As If it were possible)
When can we just Throw the dead dogs carcass of AbioDarwinism in the Trash and just be honest that God DOES Exist and there only be 2 groups of people.. God Lovers and God Haters..  Why continue with the dog and pony show?

 

 
Rapid is a relative term. How quickly do you think the PE theory is claiming new species evolve ?
 
What has this got to do with whether God exists. Why do you continue to insist on this false dichotomy of either a literal Genesis or atheism ?
 
Why can't you have the humility to respect people coming to the honest conclusion that there probably isn't a God rather than producing another false dichotomy of "God lovers and God haters" ?

By the way, if you are going to copy paste chunks of text from CMI like you did in post 33, you really ought to reference them, else it looks like you're trying to pass off writings as your own.



#36 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 July 2017 - 03:28 PM

Yes we've argued it before but the difference is I remember all of the incredibly significant logical rules you forget. One of them being that you are arguing the non-existence of certain forms is expected but you don't argue it's not expected we find fossils of what they allegedly evolved into. Can't you stop and think that through for a moment; "hang, on, so I am arguing all of the non-evolution of these completed forms is to be expected from evolution but no evolution would expect to be found such as pre-bats...but isn't that the opposite of what evolution should argue?"
 
For a theory to predict it's own lack of evidence by explaining that we should instead find nothing except things that have already completely evolved, seems rather desperate to me. So what you can't see is that is actually the correct logical prediction for creation/kinds, not evolution. It's evolution that said we evolved, and creation that said we didn't, remember.[/font]
 
That is the key problem and it doesn't change - that in the rocks we can find jellyfish, we can find bats, we can find octopus, we can find pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, what we can never find is their ancestors. The problem is even "old" species like a pterodactyl, are complete fliers already. No matter what stage of the record you look into you can place a million pound bet that the organism you find will already be a viable flier, or a viable swimmer, and will never be something evolving into a flier or swimmer. So for all the fliers you could plot different stages of history they evolved flight, but you will only find complete versions of them in the fossil record.


I’m perfectly capable of understanding your “logic”. Unfortunately, you are just making up your own scenario to apply it too.

Again, you are setting it up that the common ancestor of bats, or pterodactyls, or jellyfish, or octopus was equally as abundant and geographically widespread as these descendants. And the examples you give are all very widespread (either as they exist today or in the fossil record).

The ability to fly is clearly a very useful ability to have because opens up many more niches unavailable to a non flyer. So it is very reasonable and not special pleading to speculate that the ancestor of pterodactyls or bats was a local species that evolved flight, then diversified into the range seen later. In fact it has to be that way because all the members of a globally distributed species are not going to all gradually evolve into a flyer, that’s not the way evolution works. It is disjunct, isolated populations that are under pressure to evolve in response to environmental factors.

Jellyfish and octopus are also globally dispersed and successful groups. So you can postulate the same, that the ancestor of each group was only local, evolved into a successful “design” then diversified.

Can you see the logic of this ? A species restricted to a small geographic area, particularly if not subject to fossilisation friendly conditions is far less likely to be found today as a fossil compared to fossils of specimens belonging to an abundant, widely distributed group ? Yes ?

Of course, despite these barriers to finding transitionals, we still have many hundreds of examples which you pretend don’t exist but prefer to focus on the absent ones.

There is no reason to expect a fine series of gradations between larger groups of course, given the rarity of fossilization, the non continuous nature of most sedimentary processes, shifting populations with environmental change, and fossils succumbing to erosional processes through time.

Where we do find gradual, incremental change in the fossil record between species, and I point it out, it gets universally and conveniently ignored (cf. Micraster sea urchin lineage in chalk).
 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#37 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 July 2017 - 03:58 PM

 

 

Wibble: The ability to fly is clearly a very useful ability to have because opens up many more niches unavailable to a non flyer. So it is very reasonable and not special pleading to speculate that the ancestor of pterodactyls or bats was a local species that evolved flight, then diversified into the range seen later. In fact it has to be that way because all the members of a globally distributed species are not going to all gradually evolve into a flyer, that’s not the way evolution works. It is disjunct, isolated populations that are under pressure to evolve in response to environmental factors.

 

Yeah but it's a just-so story. I don't have any reason to believe species are sent the design plans for various types of anatomical flight just because it's useful. You ask me to believe evolution is an all knowing designer, that hid the way it achieved these things. My answer is this; Lol!

 

It would be useful right now in the world, if elephants were born without ivory since wicked men are close to making them extinct. Do you see it happening?

 

No. In the real world, nature doesn't send new anatomical plans to a species just because those features would be useful, because nature isn't a designer. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it will be magically given by evolution. Evolution has no prescience, if it did, it would have abolished ivory in elephants, an isolated population without tusks should have been born to fight the hunters of elephants that seek their ivory.

 

Wibble, if nature can't even provide an elephant without ivory why should I accept it sprouted wings for pterosaurs and bats? Because it's "useful"? 

 

Get real, there just isn't any reality to it.

 

I tell you what, the conjectural scenario you have just described right? Feel free to believe it. But it's about as convincing to me as pigs flying, so why can't you accept your theory will always be an inadequate insult to the Lord, to us given the sophistication of the designs? I can't just dismiss the sophistication of the design in nature I have come to learn, it truly doesn't speak of any mindless evolution, for the level of design is just too sophisticated. I honestly don't believe evolution can even provide an ivoryless elephant even though the selection pressure for one must be like a pressure cooker about to explode.

 

Seems to me evolutionists employ limitless creativity in creating escapes for evolution. So you conjecture it happened that way, and to my mind there is no rational reason to ever believe it, especially when propped up by the further atheist magic of abiogenesis fairytale, and let's face it they are part of the same tall tale. Both absurd taken apart, truly preposterously ridiculous when married together, and married they are my lad - joined at the hip!



#38 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 10 July 2017 - 07:38 PM

Wiz: "Yeah but it's a just-so story...."

Such a comment is a misrepresentation of hypotheses within natural history. The just-so stories were devised by Kipling without reference to a pre-existing scientific model nor expectation that they might ever be empirically falsifiable. Wibble's suggestion above is a progression rooted in obscerved naturalistic phenomena, accepted naturalistic processes and potentially leaving naturalistic traces. The creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis (to explain the long-held, erroneous belief that men had one less rib bone) is an authentic example of an origins' just-so story.

#39 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:00 AM

 

 

Cheeseburger: Such a comment is a misrepresentation of hypotheses within natural history. The just-so stories were devised by Kipling without reference to a pre-existing scientific model nor expectation that they might ever be empirically falsifiable. Wibble's suggestion above is a progression rooted in obscerved naturalistic phenomena, accepted naturalistic processes and potentially leaving naturalistic traces. The creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis (to explain the long-held, erroneous belief that men had one less rib bone) is an authentic example of an origins' just-so story. 

 

Look that won't change the fact you have an appallingly weak case, logically speaking. Can you show me an elephant in nature right now that is born without ivory since they are nearly extinct because of humans hunting them? No? So if evolution can't even come up with a lack of ivory tusk, why should I ever believe it has the power to give various flight apparatus in bats, pterosaurs and birds? For it to happen once would be staggering beyond words, but when we look at the sophistication of those designs, intelligent design of the most immense proportion, is the only logical cause.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: The creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis (to explain the long-held, erroneous belief that men had one less rib bone) is an authentic example of an origins' just-so story.

 

The problem with that argument is that you have no way to verify what you are saying. How can you know how long this was a belief? Do you know when that long held belief began? Do you know that belief preceded the Genesis account?

 

So to just say that was a story invented to explain the belief in one less rib bone, is just an assertion. 

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: The just-so stories were devised by Kipling without reference to a pre-existing scientific model

 

Oh forgive me then I shall correct myself, Wibble offered a story. A story that an isolated population can sprout wings because they would be, "useful" and not leave a trace, the same as everything else in history, that also left no trace.

 

Meanwhile in reality-land, all we find littered in the fossils is complete fliers, completely designed, without any hint that evolution created them, meaning parsimoniously I am afraid that favours a designer immensely more than any evolution story, and studying population genetics in micro evolution, I am afraid doesn't give an ounce of credibility to this macro story.



#40 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 July 2017 - 03:41 AM

I "liked" Wibble's post. Some people might think that means I agree with it. I don't agree the conjecture is sufficient to even count as evidence for macro necessarily but fair play, since he gave a fairly decent explanation/defence. 

 

I try to give "likes" not just to creationists, because that's what the anti-theists are like at some forums I used to attend, not one of them would ever admit to valuing anything a creationist said, but if someone explains something well or writes something well, to hold back because they are not creationist would mean I am no better than the anti-theists, that wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire.

 

(by "anti-theists" I don't really mean "atheists", I mean the hardcore folk that have a highly prejudiced agenda.)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users