Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

Missing Transitional Intermediates

Recommended Posts

 

 

. ..... Humans and Neanderthals are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor,......

Got any evidence for that Assertion? Didnt think so..

From the journal Nature:

Genomic studies have shown that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, and that non-Africans today are the products of this mixture.

 

From the journal Science:

Anatomically modern humans overlapped and mated with Neandertals such that non-African humans inherit ~1 to 3% of their genomes from Neandertal ancestors.

 

Got any evidence for THOSE Assertions? Didnt think so..

 

You do know how the scientific method is utilized to gather evidence dont you? BTW.. Baseless assertions printed from "Science" (See PSUEDO) sources WONT CUT THE MUSTARD...

 

I hope that clears up your apparent confusion on the subject!

 

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.†Louis Bounoure. The Advocate,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Merely bringing up Jerry Coyne and Dawkins is surely going to shut down any honest debate..(Probably the intention)

I have read their books (Unfortunately) Searched high and low for ONE SINGLE EMAPLE OF EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports the mindless 2 Billion year old Microbes to Microbiologists Myth... I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE ONE... I see lots of creationist bashing and God Hating though.... Par for the course...

It would be quite easy for show that I am wrong by posting some.. But, of course.. You will do no such thing and your silence will be rightfully interpreted to prove that I am right AGAIN..

 

I'm not sure I even believe you have read their books judging by how I exposed you after you claimed you had read Schmidt-Rhaesa's Evolution of Organ Systems (that and your general lack of knowledge on evolution and science in general). Perhaps you should, then you can stop pestering everyone on that subject.

As for a single example of empirical evidence, have you been asleep the whole time you have been on this forum ?

Ok, explain why no matter how much we observe rocks and the attendant fossils in Precambrian through to the start of the Devonian we never find any fossils of ray finned fish (the most diverse fish group today containing 99% of all species, and present ubiquitously across marine and freshwater environments). Why did your flood record nothing of these in the lower layers but preserved them with increasing success particularly from the Cretaceous onwards, with recognizably modern genera only appearing recently ? Just one herring, or goby or tuna in say, the Silurian would be a severe blow to the theory if not falsify it.

 

Surely even you can see that this favours evolution not creation ? (I know, you would never admit it)

 

Go on provide a positive post for a change on how this evidence is expected for creation rather than attempting to besmirch the theory you have so much hatred for.

 

"I'm not sure I even believe you have read their books"

 

Should I be concerned if someone who believes some of the stuff that YOU do... DOESN'T Believe ME? LOL.... Your track record doesnt inspire a lot of confidence as for as credibility. I read "Why evolution is true" did you? I read "The greatest show on Earth" " The God delusion" "The blind watchmaker" and another roll of toilet paper that I cant even remember the name of it, probably for good reason...

 

ANYWAY.. My ORIGINAL request for evidence from their books still stands..

 

By the way... I am glad you brought up Dr. A R Schmidt! I never claimed that I read his book, so you should appogize for the FALSE Accusation !

 

WHILE YOU ON THE SUBJECT

 

Why dont you repeat Andy Rheasa Schmidt's "Answer" to my question for everyone to see? If you don't, I will..

 

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of the mainstream view is that indeed there was a rapid diversification of forms in the Cambrian but that the sudden appearance may partly be an artifact due to the better preservation potential of hard parts - shells and exoskeletons etc. (which perhaps was a product of an evolutionary arms race following the appearance of mobile predators such as Anomalocaris). I think molecular studies have suggested an earlier appearance for various phyla than suggested by the fossils, so I'm not sure that it is believed that one Cambrian ancestor branched into all the phyla. And a small minority of phyla do have fossils in the Precambrian, sponges for example. The Ediacaran fauna, though generally mysterious and perhaps a dead end group, a few have been postulated as being ancestral to some Cambrian phyla (can't remember which without looking it up)

 

The rapid diversification being a result of, or in large part due to, adaptive radiation seems to still be main-stream with a quick and dirty google search. I agree saying that a single ancestral species diversifying into all animal phyla simultaneously is a bit of a stretch; it doesn't really make much sense to me.

 

Following the adaptive radiation scenario, we would have a few key animal species where each one quickly diversified to fill niches, and that may be the genesis of some animal phyla. Sponges (porifera) are perhaps the most basal extant phylum, and I would venture a guess that they were here before chordates.

 

I have no doubt that animals existed before the Cambrian; I don't agree with What If's statement beyond that adaptive radiation probably played an important role in Cambrian diversity, but that certainly doesn't mean a single species radiated out into dozens of animal phyla simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Merely bringing up Jerry Coyne and Dawkins is surely going to shut down any honest debate..(Probably the intention)

I have read their books (Unfortunately) Searched high and low for ONE SINGLE EMAPLE OF EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports the mindless 2 Billion year old Microbes to Microbiologists Myth... I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE ONE... I see lots of creationist bashing and God Hating though.... Par for the course...

It would be quite easy for show that I am wrong by posting some.. But, of course.. You will do no such thing and your silence will be rightfully interpreted to prove that I am right AGAIN..

 

I'm not sure I even believe you have read their books judging by how I exposed you after you claimed you had read Schmidt-Rhaesa's Evolution of Organ Systems (that and your general lack of knowledge on evolution and science in general). Perhaps you should, then you can stop pestering everyone on that subject.

As for a single example of empirical evidence, have you been asleep the whole time you have been on this forum ?

Ok, explain why no matter how much we observe rocks and the attendant fossils in Precambrian through to the start of the Devonian we never find any fossils of ray finned fish (the most diverse fish group today containing 99% of all species, and present ubiquitously across marine and freshwater environments). Why did your flood record nothing of these in the lower layers but preserved them with increasing success particularly from the Cretaceous onwards, with recognizably modern genera only appearing recently ? Just one herring, or goby or tuna in say, the Silurian would be a severe blow to the theory if not falsify it.

 

Surely even you can see that this favours evolution not creation ? (I know, you would never admit it)

 

Go on provide a positive post for a change on how this evidence is expected for creation rather than attempting to besmirch the theory you have so much hatred for.

 

"Ok, explain why no matter how much we observe rocks and the attendant fossils in Precambrian through to the start of the Devonian we never find any fossils of ray finned fish (the most diverse fish group today containing 99% of all species, and present ubiquitously across marine and freshwater environments)

 

There are several problems with this.. For one thing you claim that this is your "Empirical Scientific Evidence" ... Since when is making up a story that has SOME creatures and half of their brothers and cousins (Like the jellyfish) evolving NOT AT ALL While the other half of its brothers and cousins are evolving into a Wibble something that should be believable?

 

Also, as I mentioned the IS NO SUCH THING AS THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN.. It only exists in textbooks and the imagination of Evolutionists! (Right next to the "100 Million Year Old" Red Blood Cells!) Therefore, The Cambrian, Diluvian, Silurian, Etc.. Are layers that show NOT millions of years, but represent strata laid down by the worldwide flood of Noah..(Proven by polystrate fossils and trees) Among many other things..

 

AND

 

Making up scenarios to shoehorn the fairytale into and only cherry picking what fits while throwing out and ignoring what doesnt is NOT Scientific in any way shape or form..

 

 

"Just one herring, or goby or tuna in say, the Silurian would be a severe blow to the theory if not falsify it."

 

Oh Come On...

 

 

The Coelecanth was supposed to have "emerged" 400 "MILLION" years ago

living for 330 "Million" years and going Extinct almost 70 "Million" years ago... And then. OOPS.. 70 years ago they find them still around.. But for the sacred religion of Evolution? Not a problem.. And that is the beauty about a Science Fiction novel about "Long ago and far away" You get to make it up as you go along, morphing it loke clay any way you want whenever you want.. Because it is NOT subject to the Scientific Method.. So if a tuna ws found where it shouldn't be, do you know what would happen? NOTHING.. We would Just see ANOTHER ad hoc amendment added to the Novel... And, Without a Time Machine, WHO CAN PROVE YOU WRONG???!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ok, explain why no matter how much we observe rocks and the attendant fossils in Precambrian through to the start of the Devonian we never find any fossils of ray finned fish (the most diverse fish group today containing 99% of all species, and present ubiquitously across marine and freshwater environments)

 

There are several problems with this.. For one thing you claim that this is your "Empirical Scientific Evidence" ... Since when is making up a story that has SOME creatures and half of their brothers and cousins (Like the jellyfish) evolving NOT AT ALL While the other half of its brothers and cousins are evolving into a Wibble something that should be believable?

 

Also, as I mentioned the IS NO SUCH THING AS THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN.. It only exists in textbooks and the imagination of Evolutionists! (Right next to the "100 Million Year Old" Red Blood Cells!) Therefore, The Cambrian, Diluvian, Silurian, Etc.. Are layers that show NOT millions of years, but represent strata laid down by the worldwide flood of Noah..(Proven by polystrate fossils and trees) Among many other things..

 

AND

 

Making up scenarios to shoehorn the fairytale into and only cherry picking what fits while throwing out and ignoring what doesnt is NOT Scientific in any way shape or form..

Yep just as predicted, you’ve no idea how the pattern of ray finned fish in the rocks can be used as positive evidence for creation.

 

And yes it is empirical evidence. The observation of the presence of ray finned fish in higher layers and the never broken lack of them in lower layers is empirical evidence of their existence in the environment when the deposition happened and vice versa. Sure, just one find would break the pattern but it never happens.

 

Your flood was supposed to have scoured the planet down to Precambrian rock then laid down deposits in separate layers on top. So in the Grand Canyon for instance you have the Cambrian Muav Limestone (with marine fossils but no fish) underlying the Temple Butte Limestone (Devonian) and Redwall limestone (Carboniferous) which do contain fish fossils (different assemblages in each). You can’t explain this separation can you ?

 

What’s this Diluvian period ?

 

"Just one herring, or goby or tuna in say, the Silurian would be a severe blow to the theory if not falsify it."

 

Oh Come On...

 

 

The Coelecanth was supposed to have "emerged" 400 "MILLION" years ago

living for 330 "Million" years and going Extinct almost 70 "Million" years ago... And then. OOPS.. 70 years ago they find them still around.. But for the sacred religion of Evolution? Not a problem.. And that is the beauty about a Science Fiction novel about "Long ago and far away" You get to make it up as you go along, morphing it loke clay any way you want whenever you want.. Because it is NOT subject to the Scientific Method.. So if a tuna ws found where it shouldn't be, do you know what would happen? NOTHING.. We would Just see ANOTHER ad hoc amendment added to the Novel... And, Without a Time Machine, WHO CAN PROVE YOU WRONG???!!!

Nope, if you found a modern type of fish in the Cambrian, or a bird or mammal in the Carboniferous for example then evolution would be falsified. This is because you can’t have species belonging to a group that hadn’t diverged from the common ancestor at that point in time. So with the bird or mammal example, it would make no evolutionary sense to find them in the Carboniferous (that time of coal forming forests – surely you would find representatives of these animals living there) when synapsid reptile ancestors of mammals and the therapod group that led to birds did not yet exist. So yes evolution is up there on a pedestal to be proven wrong with just one find, and you can’t do it.

 

Coelocanths ? So you have no clue about the ray finned fish so you fall back on the creationist’s favourite lobe finned fish. Why is the coelocanth a problem for evolution ? They live in very local areas in very deep parts of the ocean. Why would we expect to find a fossil from the last 70 million years  from this environment ?

 

Let’s see if you can make an intelligent response to all or at least the majority of my points for a change rather than just ignoring them and picking one line to vent your vacuous and emotion driven assertions at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Humans and Neanderthals are evolutionary cousins hailing from a common ancestor,"

 

Got any evidence for that Assertion? Didnt think so..

 

 

It's an inference based upon various things general to evolutionary theory like homologies, and as Piasan pointed out we have Neanderthal DNA and comparisons show that they interbred with our species. So according to creation scientists' standards we do have a common ancestor and would be evolutionary cousins. If those creation scientists have a technical word to describe relationships within a holobaramin apart from 'evolutionary cousin' I do not know it, but a rose by any other name.

 

"And evolution is perfectly happy with that"

As I have pointed out many times.. "Evolution" is "Happy" with Everything because it already predicted everything! How can one go wrong with "Evolution"??

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

Jim Thinnsen

"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

“It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species.â€

— Richard Goldschmidt (Inventor of the "Hopeful Monsters" Theory)

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

Richard Dawkins

 

All those 'evolution happens quickly/slowly/never' are explained within the theory itself as a product of the rate of environmental change. This has been explained to you ad nauseam.

 

An interesting theory of everything would be the Christian theory of everything when it comes to prayer: either God says "yes", "no", or "not right now". The predictive power of Christian thought when it comes to prayer sure is amazing.

 

"It's an inference based upon various things general to evolutionary theory like homologies"

 

And that is exactly my point, You assume "Evolution" by Assuming Evolution! In my world, that is not evidence at all but Classic Circular Reasoning based on wishful speculation!

 

"All those 'evolution happens quickly/slowly/never' are explained within the theory itself as a product of the rate of environmental change."

 

I suppose that you can "explain it to me ad nasuem" until you are blue in the face, but we are back to circular reasoning here.. You make up a paradigm about "long ago and far away" that covers any and every possible contingency imaginable beforehand (Even 100 "MYO" red blood cells! Lol)and proceed to proclaim that it is merely a "product of the rate of environmental change"! If the IMPLICATIONS of the Evolutionfairytale werent so crucial to the philosophy of Atheists / God Haters, the whole farcical myth would have been rightfully hurled into the dustbin of history long long ago..

 

HOWEVER

 

As The Darwinian guru himself so elocuently put it..

 

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

Richard Dawkins

 

 

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." R.L. Wysong,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Ok, explain why no matter how much we observe rocks and the attendant fossils in Precambrian through to the start of the Devonian we never find any fossils of ray finned fish (the most diverse fish group today containing 99% of all species, and present ubiquitously across marine and freshwater environments)

There are several problems with this.. For one thing you claim that this is your "Empirical Scientific Evidence" ... Since when is making up a story that has SOME creatures and half of their brothers and cousins (Like the jellyfish) evolving NOT AT ALL While the other half of its brothers and cousins are evolving into a Wibble something that should be believable?

Also, as I mentioned the IS NO SUCH THING AS THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN.. It only exists in textbooks and the imagination of Evolutionists! (Right next to the "100 Million Year Old" Red Blood Cells!) Therefore, The Cambrian, Diluvian, Silurian, Etc.. Are layers that show NOT millions of years, but represent strata laid down by the worldwide flood of Noah..(Proven by polystrate fossils and trees) Among many other things..

AND

Making up scenarios to shoehorn the fairytale into and only cherry picking what fits while throwing out and ignoring what doesnt is NOT Scientific in any way shape or form..

 

Yep just as predicted, you’ve no idea how the pattern of ray finned fish in the rocks can be used as positive evidence for creation.

 

And yes it is empirical evidence. The observation of the presence of ray finned fish in higher layers and the never broken lack of them in lower layers is empirical evidence of their existence in the environment when the deposition happened and vice versa. Sure, just one find would break the pattern but it never happens.

 

Your flood was supposed to have scoured the planet down to Precambrian rock then laid down deposits in separate layers on top. So in the Grand Canyon for instance you have the Cambrian Muav Limestone (with marine fossils but no fish) underlying the Temple Butte Limestone (Devonian) and Redwall limestone (Carboniferous) which do contain fish fossils (different assemblages in each). You can’t explain this separation can you ?

 

What’s this Diluvian period ?

 

"Just one herring, or goby or tuna in say, the Silurian would be a severe blow to the theory if not falsify it."

Oh Come On...

The Coelecanth was supposed to have "emerged" 400 "MILLION" years ago

living for 330 "Million" years and going Extinct almost 70 "Million" years ago... And then. OOPS.. 70 years ago they find them still around.. But for the sacred religion of Evolution? Not a problem.. And that is the beauty about a Science Fiction novel about "Long ago and far away" You get to make it up as you go along, morphing it loke clay any way you want whenever you want.. Because it is NOT subject to the Scientific Method.. So if a tuna ws found where it shouldn't be, do you know what would happen? NOTHING.. We would Just see ANOTHER ad hoc amendment added to the Novel... And, Without a Time Machine, WHO CAN PROVE YOU WRONG???!!!

 

Nope, if you found a modern type of fish in the Cambrian, or a bird or mammal in the Carboniferous for example then evolution would be falsified. This is because you can’t have species belonging to a group that hadn’t diverged from the common ancestor at that point in time. So with the bird or mammal example, it would make no evolutionary sense to find them in the Carboniferous (that time of coal forming forests – surely you would find representatives of these animals living there) when synapsid reptile ancestors of mammals and the therapod group that led to birds did not yet exist. So yes evolution is up there on a pedestal to be proven wrong with just one find, and you can’t do it.

Coelocanths ? So you have no clue about the ray finned fish so you fall back on the creationist’s favourite lobe finned fish. Why is the coelocanth a problem for evolution ? They live in very local areas in very deep parts of the ocean. Why would we expect to find a fossil from the last 70 million years from this environment ?

Let’s see if you can make an intelligent response to all or at least the majority of my points for a change rather than just ignoring them and picking one line to vent your vacuous and emotion driven assertions at.

"Nope, if you found a modern type of fish in the Cambrian, or a bird or mammal in the Carboniferous for example then evolution would be falsified."

 

So are you claiming for the record, right here and now, that if such a thing would occur, and 100% verified, that you would immediately become a creationist? Would you prefer the theory be removed from the biology books? Would you ask them to stop teaching the theory in public school biology classes at taxpayer expense knowing that it is 100% False after the discoveries?

 

I am asking serious questions here.. Please answer then honestly (if you can)

 

 

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BK, I do my best to make a thorough response in my posts, it is not fair that you constantly dodge providing any answers to the questions I pose of you. Is that how you maintain your belief, by completely ignoring everything that contradicts a literal Genesis ?

 

"Nope, if you found a modern type of fish in the Cambrian, or a bird or mammal in the Carboniferous for example then evolution would be falsified."

So are you claiming for the record, right here and now, that if such a thing would occur, and 100% verified, that you would immediately become a creationist? Would you prefer the theory be removed from the biology books? Would you ask them to stop teaching the theory in public school biology classes at taxpayer expense knowing that it is 100% False after the discoveries?

I am asking serious questions here.. Please answer then honestly (if you can)


I certainly wouldn't become a young earth creationist, Ussher's calculation has long been laughed out of science. However, if such finds were 100% verified the ToE as it stands would be in disarray, I would be very confused and I would probably become agnostic. The evidence would still be strong for there to be evolution still in the mix, because of the biogeographical evidence amongst other things but a bird in the Carboniferous would blow my mind. A whale in the Precambrian would send me over the edge, it would have to be either a supernatural creation event or alien interference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BK, I do my best to make a thorough response in my posts, it is not fair that you constantly dodge providing any answers to the questions I pose of you. Is that how you maintain your belief, by completely ignoring everything that contradicts a literal Genesis ?

 

 

"Nope, if you found a modern type of fish in the Cambrian, or a bird or mammal in the Carboniferous for example then evolution would be falsified."

So are you claiming for the record, right here and now, that if such a thing would occur, and 100% verified, that you would immediately become a creationist? Would you prefer the theory be removed from the biology books? Would you ask them to stop teaching the theory in public school biology classes at taxpayer expense knowing that it is 100% False after the discoveries?

I am asking serious questions here.. Please answer then honestly (if you can)

 

I certainly wouldn't become a young earth creationist, Ussher's calculation has long been laughed out of science. However, if such finds were 100% verified the ToE as it stands would be in disarray, I would be very confused and I would probably become agnostic. The evidence would still be strong for there to be evolution still in the mix, because of the biogeographical evidence amongst other things but a bird in the Carboniferous would blow my mind. A whale in the Precambrian would send me over the edge, it would have to be either a supernatural creation event or alien interference.

" I would be very confused and I would probably become agnostic."

 

So 100,000,000 year old Red blood cells didn't do the trick for you right?

 

So 500,000,000 year old jellyfish NOT evolving while his cousins were becoming a MAN or Professor Andy's "Answer" didnt do the trick for you right?

 

So Abiogenesis didnt do the trick for you right?

 

Or the bombardier beetle or the chicken and egg problem or the hummingbird or the woodpecker or tbe plover or the monarch butterfly

or the...

 

You have shown for all to see, that your belief is based on a philosophy and has nothing to do with science.. remember

 

I DONT CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

 

I just dont like to have to pay for YOUR philosophy to be shoved down every public school kids throat at MY expense as if it were "Science"

That is a lie that I dont want to pay for anymore.. I believe in the separation if cburcb and state... I wish the metaphysical naturalists weren't such hypocrites about it..It is ok to teach THEIR religion ONLY

 

 

"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ... H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Ok, explain why no matter how much we observe rocks and the attendant fossils in Precambrian through to the start of the Devonian we never find any fossils of ray finned fish (the most diverse fish group today containing 99% of all species, and present ubiquitously across marine and freshwater environments)

There are several problems with this.. For one thing you claim that this is your "Empirical Scientific Evidence" ... Since when is making up a story that has SOME creatures and half of their brothers and cousins (Like the jellyfish) evolving NOT AT ALL While the other half of its brothers and cousins are evolving into a Wibble something that should be believable?

Also, as I mentioned the IS NO SUCH THING AS THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN.. It only exists in textbooks and the imagination of Evolutionists! (Right next to the "100 Million Year Old" Red Blood Cells!) Therefore, The Cambrian, Diluvian, Silurian, Etc.. Are layers that show NOT millions of years, but represent strata laid down by the worldwide flood of Noah..(Proven by polystrate fossils and trees) Among many other things..

AND

Making up scenarios to shoehorn the fairytale into and only cherry picking what fits while throwing out and ignoring what doesnt is NOT Scientific in any way shape or form..

 

Yep just as predicted, you’ve no idea how the pattern of ray finned fish in the rocks can be used as positive evidence for creation.

 

And yes it is empirical evidence. The observation of the presence of ray finned fish in higher layers and the never broken lack of them in lower layers is empirical evidence of their existence in the environment when the deposition happened and vice versa. Sure, just one find would break the pattern but it never happens.

 

Your flood was supposed to have scoured the planet down to Precambrian rock then laid down deposits in separate layers on top. So in the Grand Canyon for instance you have the Cambrian Muav Limestone (with marine fossils but no fish) underlying the Temple Butte Limestone (Devonian) and Redwall limestone (Carboniferous) which do contain fish fossils (different assemblages in each). You can’t explain this separation can you ?

 

What’s this Diluvian period ?

 

"Just one herring, or goby or tuna in say, the Silurian would be a severe blow to the theory if not falsify it."

Oh Come On...

The Coelecanth was supposed to have "emerged" 400 "MILLION" years ago

living for 330 "Million" years and going Extinct almost 70 "Million" years ago... And then. OOPS.. 70 years ago they find them still around.. But for the sacred religion of Evolution? Not a problem.. And that is the beauty about a Science Fiction novel about "Long ago and far away" You get to make it up as you go along, morphing it loke clay any way you want whenever you want.. Because it is NOT subject to the Scientific Method.. So if a tuna ws found where it shouldn't be, do you know what would happen? NOTHING.. We would Just see ANOTHER ad hoc amendment added to the Novel... And, Without a Time Machine, WHO CAN PROVE YOU WRONG???!!!

 

Nope, if you found a modern type of fish in the Cambrian, or a bird or mammal in the Carboniferous for example then evolution would be falsified. This is because you can’t have species belonging to a group that hadn’t diverged from the common ancestor at that point in time. So with the bird or mammal example, it would make no evolutionary sense to find them in the Carboniferous (that time of coal forming forests – surely you would find representatives of these animals living there) when synapsid reptile ancestors of mammals and the therapod group that led to birds did not yet exist. So yes evolution is up there on a pedestal to be proven wrong with just one find, and you can’t do it.

Coelocanths ? So you have no clue about the ray finned fish so you fall back on the creationist’s favourite lobe finned fish. Why is the coelocanth a problem for evolution ? They live in very local areas in very deep parts of the ocean. Why would we expect to find a fossil from the last 70 million years  from this environment ?

Let’s see if you can make an intelligent response to all or at least the majority of my points for a change rather than just ignoring them and picking one line to vent your vacuous and emotion driven assertions at.

 

 

"Yep just as predicted, you’ve no idea how the pattern of ray finned fish in the rocks can be used as positive evidence for creation."

 

What, The Metaspringga, a vertebrate swimming fish with camera eyes, blood vessels, digestive system, muscular swimming, and gills that are found in the "Lower Cambrian" Not "Modern" enough for you?

 

And this is evidence for Microbes to Microbiologists?

 

Come on...

 

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors." S. Jaki,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blitzking: What, The Metaspringga, a vertebrate swimming fish with camera eyes, blood vessels, digestive system, muscular swimming, and gills that are found in the "Lower Cambrian" Not "Modern" enough for you? 

 

His argument that "just one will do, out of place", is basically repeated in the fashion of a troll. 

 

I have shown Wibble a diagram several times of "out of place" organisms, which appear before their evolution. What actually happens isn't that the ad-nauseam silliness is observed, "one will convince me", what actually happens, is Wibble changes the goal posts when you show him one out of place. The evolutionist makes a promise that one will convince him, but plays the game of saying that one is never qualified. First of all, a breaking of the pattern, if the pattern is not caused by evolution, may be impossible., For example if the Cambrian really does represent a marine ecological zone, how can I show a bunny in the Cambrian? And even if it isn't caused because of that, since we argue the pattern isn't caused by evolution as creationists, and since we do argue such a marine zone, or largely a marine zone, why then would we have to show a bunny in the Cambrian?

 

So it's a naive logical error, because there is an underlying assumption that we as creationists argue that the Cambrian isn't such a zone but is an era. Wibble, please first show that we agree the Cambrian is an era. Did you know we believe the Cambrian to be a certain collection of rocks laid down in some places on earth? Bonedigger has shown diagrams of where it doesn't exist and the empirical lack of evidence that it ever did, in those places.

 

So basically it's a naive argument, predicated on the assumption that creationists believe in an evolutionary rock-record. It's a red-herring. My advice - don't chase the red-herring. The correct logical answer is that the pattern presented to it, which has now in modern times, been fragmented, is the pattern presented to us as factual, not the assumption it is an evolutionary pattern. Therefore we don't have to break the pattern, it might not be possible if that pattern was caused by other things. There are intelligent explanations for how these patterns could have happened, without evolution.

 

I have experienced this now perhaps several dozen times with evolutionists on the internet ranging from superbly dim-witted to intelligent people, what they do is they say, "show me X and it will convince me", then they change the goal posts. They will change the criteria or say, "that's not a valid example, it isn't verified". In other words, Wibble is saying this, and he thinks it awfully clever; "throw a 2 on this dice with a weight in it so it can only land on 6".

 

For example I was asked to show evidence of vertebrates in the Cambrian by an evolutionist once and he didn't appear to know of the evidence now found for them recently, and when I shown him it he changed the goals posts and instead said, "now show me it in the early Cambrian, that find was in the late Cambrian".

 

Lol! - He only mentioned "early" and, "late" AFTER I scored the goal, notice. (shakes head in pity for them)

 

The whole propaganda of "show me one thing" is incessantly repeated by Wibble, because of his memory problems. He seems to operate under the principle-of-repetition. 

 

Example; "oh well yes, that's because those people with that colour skin are inferior. Show me one that is intelligent."

Then I show several intelligent, then he says this a week later;

 

"Oh yes but it's well known they're inferior".

 

They think it terribly clever, whereas I just shake my head every time I read it, for even a pigeon would get it by now.

 

BK, if a person carries on doing a thing like this my only advice can be to not take the bait anymore. Stop feeding the troll, my lad. For only insane people repeat false things thinking such a repetition will make them true things. :gotcha:

 

Recently they have confirmed footprints to be human, over 5 million years, which predates human evolution, and they also found a 300-350,000 year old homo sapien. These are well documented examples. I accept the excuse, "it's not inconceivable the evolution was earlier" as a sensible option, but I don't accept the mendacious promise; "show me one and I ditch evolution".

 

That's just 100% bullzhit.

 

This is sufficiently out of place if it predates the alleged human evolution. In the same way they have found the pentadactyl pattern in a critter dated older than the evolution of fish into amphibians.

 

The evolution pattern can be broken, technically and that is correct request for if evolution says "X evolved 3 million years ago" logically, we have to prove modern organisms predated that date. That is the correct request, not a breaking of the rocks themselves. You can't say, "show me this type of creature in rocks they were not preserved in" for the rather obvious reason they simply were not preserved there, or haven't been found. And if evolutionists accept that the Cambrian existed in the places Bonedigger shown it never existed in, then doesn't that mean there could have been such creatures in those places of the Cambrian that have forever disappeared from the record? :acigar:

 

The rock record itself, if it still has a general pattern, that can't be broken even though evolution patterns can be. That's because the rocks themselves and whatever pattern they contain, are factual. To change the evolution patterns/claims to match the evolving pattern in the rocks, is like moving the goal posts. Logically it isn't fair game to pretend the new pattern was the previous one, for the present pattern now found, DEFIES the one evolutionists said was there. If some pattern is established the only way to change it would be to go back in time. The key is to explain the pattern without evolution and since evolution-patterns are broken regularly, it is not that difficult to explain the coarse pattern without evolution. 

 

If evolution was true, the strictly specific evolutionary patterns wouldn't have been breakable such as with earlier humans, amphibians and vertebrates. Mammal and plant evolution has also been broken, evolutionists said it happened much later but now they find mammals with dinos, and grass too, well developed grass. "diversified".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Blitzking: What, The Metaspringga, a vertebrate swimming fish with camera eyes, blood vessels, digestive system, muscular swimming, and gills that are found in the "Lower Cambrian" Not "Modern" enough for you? 

 

His argument that "just one will do, out of place", is basically repeated in the fashion of a troll. 

 

I have shown Wibble a diagram several times of "out of place" organisms, which appear before their evolution. What actually happens isn't that the ad-nauseam silliness is observed, "one will convince me", what actually happens, is Wibble changes the goal posts when you show him one out of place. The evolutionist makes a promise that one will convince him, but plays the game of saying that one is never qualified. First of all, a breaking of the pattern, if the pattern is not caused by evolution, may be impossible., For example if the Cambrian really does represent a marine ecological zone, how can I show a bunny in the Cambrian? And even if it isn't caused because of that, since we argue the pattern isn't caused by evolution as creationists, and since we do argue such a marine zone, or largely a marine zone, why then would we have to show a bunny in the Cambrian?

 

So it's a naive logical error, because there is an underlying assumption that we as creationists argue that the Cambrian isn't such a zone but is an era. Wibble, please first show that we agree the Cambrian is an era. Did you know we believe the Cambrian to be a certain collection of rocks laid down in some places on earth? Bonedigger has shown diagrams of where it doesn't exist and the empirical lack of evidence that it ever did, in those places.

 

So basically it's a naive argument, predicated on the assumption that creationists believe in an evolutionary rock-record. It's a red-herring. My advice - don't chase the red-herring. The correct logical answer is that the pattern presented to it, which has now in modern times, been fragmented, is the pattern presented to us as factual, not the assumption it is an evolutionary pattern. Therefore we don't have to break the pattern, it might not be possible if that pattern was caused by other things. There are intelligent explanations for how these patterns could have happened, without evolution.

 

I have experienced this now perhaps several dozen times with evolutionists on the internet ranging from superbly dim-witted to intelligent people, what they do is they say, "show me X and it will convince me", then they change the goal posts. They will change the criteria or say, "that's not a valid example, it isn't verified". In other words, Wibble is saying this, and he thinks it awfully clever; "throw a 2 on this dice with a weight in it so it can only land on 6".

 

For example I was asked to show evidence of vertebrates in the Cambrian by an evolutionist once and he didn't appear to know of the evidence now found for them recently, and when I shown him it he changed the goals posts and instead said, "now show me it in the early Cambrian, that find was in the late Cambrian".

 

Lol! - He only mentioned "early" and, "late" AFTER I scored the goal, notice. (shakes head in pity for them)

 

The whole propaganda of "show me one thing" is incessantly repeated by Wibble, because of his memory problems. He seems to operate under the principle-of-repetition. 

 

Example; "oh well yes, that's because those people with that colour skin are inferior. Show me one that is intelligent."

Then I show several intelligent, then he says this a week later;

 

"Oh yes but it's well known they're inferior".

 

They think it terribly clever, whereas I just shake my head every time I read it, for even a pigeon would get it by now.

 

BK, if a person carries on doing a thing like this my only advice can be to not take the bait anymore. Stop feeding the troll, my lad. For only insane people repeat false things thinking such a repetition will make them true things. :gotcha:

 

Recently they have confirmed footprints to be human, over 5 million years, which predates human evolution, and they also found a 300-350,000 year old homo sapien. These are well documented examples. I accept the excuse, "it's not inconceivable the evolution was earlier" as a sensible option, but I don't accept the mendacious promise; "show me one and I ditch evolution".

 

That's just 100% bullzhit.

 

This is sufficiently out of place if it predates the alleged human evolution. In the same way they have found the pentadactyl pattern in a critter dated older than the evolution of fish into amphibians.

 

The evolution pattern can be broken, technically and that is correct request for if evolution says "X evolved 3 million years ago" logically, we have to prove modern organisms predated that date. That is the correct request, not a breaking of the rocks themselves. You can't say, "show me this type of creature in rocks they were not preserved in" for the rather obvious reason they simply were not preserved there, or haven't been found. And if evolutionists accept that the Cambrian existed in the places Bonedigger shown it never existed in, then doesn't that mean there could have been such creatures in those places of the Cambrian that have forever disappeared from the record? :acigar:

 

The rock record itself, if it still has a general pattern, that can't be broken even though evolution patterns can be. That's because the rocks themselves and whatever pattern they contain, are factual. To change the evolution patterns/claims to match the evolving pattern in the rocks, is like moving the goal posts. Logically it isn't fair game to pretend the new pattern was the previous one, for the present pattern now found, DEFIES the one evolutionists said was there. If some pattern is established the only way to change it would be to go back in time. The key is to explain the pattern without evolution and since evolution-patterns are broken regularly, it is not that difficult to explain the coarse pattern without evolution. 

 

If evolution was true, the strictly specific evolutionary patterns wouldn't have been breakable such as with earlier humans, amphibians and vertebrates. Mammal and plant evolution has also been broken, evolutionists said it happened much later but now they find mammals with dinos, and grass too, well developed grass. "diversified".

 

Yes.. Good points Mikey.. I was going to point out the same, that he assuming Depth = Age when the strata doesnt show erosion as it should if there were long ages.... Another problem is, if the strata were to represent different "Ages" what is actually causing the strata in the first place??? No one has ever been able to adequately answer that question either! Why are they all flat and smooth? Again.. It makes zero sense!! You are right.. I may have to just let him be.. The Bible predicted the philosophy of the Wibbles of the world 2000 years ago..

 

 

2 Timothy 4

 

3" For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the same way, it isn't an out-of-this-world proclamation, if we say that we would expect an omnipotent designer to create conditions where animals can adapt in order to prevent them from going extinct, so we might expect an epigenetic code to exist, and we might reasonably expect that different kinds of animals would produce speciation, we would also expect a lack of true transitionals, if creation is true. (so we might expect a variety of bats, but we wouldn't expect to find anything evolving into bats, which is exactly what we find).

the only problem with this line of reasoning is that now you must come up with some kind of evidence for a god.there is no evidence at all for a pervading intelligence.OTOH, the overwhelming majority of the people knows in their gut that there is something else other than physical laws at work.i would NEVER expect a genetic code, epigenetics, tagged transposons, and a restart scanario to emerge from a broth of chemicals.the proposition is just plain absurd, outright ludicrous.

 

"the only problem with this line of reasoning is that now you must come up with some kind of evidence for a god."

 

 

But there are millions of examples of evidence to support that Man's origins could only be the result if a supernatural intelligence agent..

We Christians happen to call that agent God.. You have a free will so you dont have to! (In this lifetime at least)

 

"As surely as I live,' says the LORD, every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.'" Rom 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if said:

"the only problem with this line of reasoning is that now you must come up with some kind of evidence for a god."

This is what I mean when I talk about the word "evidence" not being understood. Evidence is the result of a cause. We Christians claim we are the evidence there is a God, while alleged atheists/ evolutionists claim that our existance is evidence of evolution.

With that in mind, to claim there is no evidence of God does not make sense!
Truly, it is the cause of our existance (evidence) that is being debated here on EFF not whether we exist (our existence is the evidence or effect of causation)!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the same way, it isn't an out-of-this-world proclamation, if we say that we would expect an omnipotent designer to create conditions where animals can adapt in order to prevent them from going extinct, so we might expect an epigenetic code to exist, and we might reasonably expect that different kinds of animals would produce speciation, we would also expect a lack of true transitionals, if creation is true. (so we might expect a variety of bats, but we wouldn't expect to find anything evolving into bats, which is exactly what we find).

the only problem with this line of reasoning is that now you must come up with some kind of evidence for a god.

 

there is no evidence at all for a pervading intelligence.

OTOH, the overwhelming majority of the people knows in their gut that there is something else other than physical laws at work.

 

i would NEVER expect a genetic code, epigenetics, tagged transposons, and a restart scanario to emerge from a broth of chemicals.

the proposition is just plain absurd, outright ludicrous.

 

 

 

"the only problem with this line of reasoning is that now you must come up with some kind of evidence for a god."

 

 

Are you trying to tell me that Such Majestic Beauty AND my eyes to behold it are BOTH just lucky accidents??

 

0f238c132732c5d31bb427e83a943dc5--theory

Foliage.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His argument that "just one will do, out of place", is basically repeated in the fashion of a troll.

 

I have shown Wibble a diagram several times of "out of place" organisms, which appear before their evolution. What actually happens isn't that the ad-nauseam silliness is observed, "one will convince me", what actually happens, is Wibble changes the goal posts when you show him one out of place. The evolutionist makes a promise that one will convince him, but plays the game of saying that one is never qualified. First of all, a breaking of the pattern, if the pattern is not caused by evolution, may be impossible., For example if the Cambrian really does represent a marine ecological zone, how can I show a bunny in the Cambrian? And even if it isn't caused because of that, since we argue the pattern isn't caused by evolution as creationists, and since we do argue such a marine zone, or largely a marine zone, why then would we have to show a bunny in the Cambrian?

I have never asked for a bunny in the Cambrian, that is just a weak attempt to reduce your problem. Merely showing me examples of organisms that are subsequently found older than previous examples of that type is not something out of place. As has been pointed out to you before it is hardly surprising that the first specimens of a particular taxon found don’t happen to also be the very earliest ones. A subsequent find is hardly going to shift its first appearance to a more recent date is it…

 

What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous (as I did to BK and he predictably ignored). You see there is no scope there for shifting the goal posts as you falsely accuse me of because the earliest Synapsids (mammal like reptiles) from which mammals evolved do not appear until the mid Carboniferous so you couldn’t possibly get a mammal before the basal group from which they diverged had arisen. It would be like finding you alive and well before your grandparents were born. All members of the synapsid clade disappeared at the end Permian mass extinction except the line that led to mammals, producing now extinct species that lived under the shadow of the dinosaurs until the end Cretaceous event. It’s amusing that you would triumphantly produce the mammal co existing with dinos example as an OOPF due to your lack of knowledge that this had long been understood to be the case. Similarly with birds, dinosaurs had not yet evolved in the Carboniferous so since birds evolved via the dinosaur line then an Archaeopteryx or an avocet from that period would make no sense.

 

I recall your diagram but I cannot find it and don't remember what was on it. Is there anything on there that shows the 'cart before the horse' ? For example, you often mention grasses, did the pushback pre date the first angiosperms ? (I think not).

 

So it's a naive logical error, because there is an underlying assumption that we as creationists argue that the Cambrian isn't such a zone but is an era. Wibble, please first show that we agree the Cambrian is an era. Did you know we believe the Cambrian to be a certain collection of rocks laid down in some places on earth? Bonedigger has shown diagrams of where it doesn't exist and the empirical lack of evidence that it ever did, in those places.

Yes I know you are not able to see it as a time period (for no other reason than circular Bible belief). But you do believe the Cambrian sedimentary rock was laid in a marine environment and you are not giving any plausible explanation as to where all the fish are and yet you do get primitive (jawless, finless and lacking vertebrae) chordate ancestors from which (according to the mainstream understanding) fish and all later vertebrates evolved.

 

So basically it's a naive argument, predicated on the assumption that creationists believe in an evolutionary rock-record. It's a red-herring. My advice - don't chase the red-herring. The correct logical answer is that the pattern presented to it, which has now in modern times, been fragmented, is the pattern presented to us as factual, not the assumption it is an evolutionary pattern. Therefore we don't have to break the pattern, it might not be possible if that pattern was caused by other things. There are intelligent explanations for how these patterns could have happened, without evolution.

I haven’t seen any intelligent alternative explanation from you. As you keep avoiding (will he do it again ?) fossil assemblages are separated vertically through the strata so your geographical province idea fails. (like the example I gave to BK with Cambrian strata directly underlying Devonian and Carboniferous fossil bearing rocks, which of course he has to ignore due to having no answer).

 

As for your troll accusation, I’m not the one ignoring all my points, employing strawmen and arguments from emotion, and just trotting out the same repetitive one liners like the irrelevant to the topic red blood cells robotic response that BK gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So it's a naive logical error, because there is an underlying assumption that we as creationists argue that the Cambrian isn't such a zone but is an era. Wibble, please first show that we agree the Cambrian is an era. Did you know we believe the Cambrian to be a certain collection of rocks laid down in some places on earth? Bonedigger has shown diagrams of where it doesn't exist and the empirical lack of evidence that it ever did, in those places.

 

 

So, the Cambrian layer doesn't exist all over the planet....so what?  Explain to me why .....assuming that the deep age evolutionary model is correct for the second....we should logically expect every geological layer to be present at every point on earth???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous (as I did to BK and he predictably ignored). You see there is no scope there for shifting the goal posts as you falsely accuse me of because the earliest Synapsids (mammal like reptiles) from which mammals evolved do not appear until the mid Carboniferous so you couldn’t possibly get a mammal before the basal group from which they diverged had arisen. It would be like finding you alive and well before your grandparents were born. All members of the synapsid clade disappeared at the end Permian mass extinction except the line that led to mammals, producing now extinct species that lived under the shadow of the dinosaurs until the end Cretaceous event. It’s amusing that you would triumphantly produce the mammal co existing with dinos example as an OOPF due to your lack of knowledge that this had long been understood to be the case. Similarly with birds, dinosaurs had not yet evolved in the Carboniferous so since birds evolved via the dinosaur line then an Archaeopteryx or an avocet from that period would make no sense.

 

The only lack of knowledge is yours, because you can't understand that there are such examples all over the place. For example, it is impossible if the pentadactyl limb evolved X amount of time ago from fish, that we should find amphibians with such a limb before their evolution, if that evolution itself is traced to a lineage dated in time;

 

So if you were trying to make it look like I don't know this, nice try but no cigar;

 

Greatest Hoax on Earth, Page 134; Tracks of footprints found on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zalchemie Quarry in the Holy Cross mountains of Poland have turned the Palaeontological world upside down. This is because they are evidence of a 2 metre long four-limbed walking creature dated at 397 million years old. This predates all the alleged fish-totatrapod transitional forms.

 

See, some of us actually read beyond googling evo-articles.

 

So logically, it is not possible if the five digits evolved from later transitionals such as tiktaalik, to exist before their evolution if that evolution is predicated on those specific "transitionals" occurring at a time later than a fully developed walker. 

 

 

 

Wibble: What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous (as I did to BK and he predictably ignored). You see there is no scope there for shifting the goal posts as you falsely accuse me of because the earliest Synapsids (mammal like reptiles) from which mammals evolved do not appear until the mid Carboniferous so you couldn’t possibly get a mammal before the basal group from which they diverged had arisen

 

Yes but who cares what you ask for, logically what we are obliged to provide as creationists, is evidence of forms that evolved from earlier ancestors, which exist and predate the specific evolution of those ancestors. We don't have to score through your loop, it is a red herring. Please tell me you understand what a red-herring is? If you don't here's a clue; you've just committed one. :gotcha:

 

 

 

Wibble: I haven’t seen any intelligent alternative explanation from you. As you keep avoiding (will he do it again ?) fossil assemblages are separated vertically through the strata so your geographical province idea fails

 

Lol, the geographical provinces are argued BECAUSE of the separation of the fossil assemblages you ignoramus. I am embarassed for you, best to not use terms like "geographical provinces" (biogeographical in fact), without understanding what they mean, my lad.

 

And the veracity of my arguments aren't predicated on your subjective and limited scope.

 

In fact this complaint means nothing at all I'm afraid for the types of animals you would get in vertical place of each other, supercomposed, would mean under this explanation that the types you get in various "eras" would represent where they lived not when they evolved, which would give a pattern;

 

 

 

n. A biogeographic province can have several different ecological zones within it, but may also have similar ecological niches to other biogeographical provinces, but in each province the niche is filled by a different organism. For instance, in the present day, kangaroos have a similar ecological niche to deer, bison, and antelopes (large grazing animal), though they are geographically distinct

 

 

So Wibble, it seems to me you have confused an evolutionary history with a a creationist history somehow because you've taken some terms you don't understand properly and tried to kind of conflate everything at once.

 

You have to think of it from the perspective of a creation model. The scientists are saying that the order you get, vertically, with differing creatures, don't contain certain things for the same reason that bison and antelope today wouldn't be found with kangaroos, that is what provincialism is, types of animals that live in similar niches but live in geographically separated zones. So when you say, "show me birds in the carboniferous" if they had not lived in that zone it wouldn't matter, even if the zone suited their lifestyle, because like today, this wouldn't mean we should find bison living with kangaroos. Under such an explanation, you are then requesting I show a bird preserved where it did not live. So it's nothing to do with an earlier time because you forget that we are not arguing the Carboniferous is an earlier time to begin with. (Gordon Bennet!)

 

Woodmorappe argues that the "patterns" and types of fossils would be explainable by what they feed on (TAB province) meaning we can explain the patterns and succession of rocks, without evolution. For example, mammals would survive better than dinosaurs not because of evolutionary stories of extinction but because post-flood, the type of vegetation for mammals would be more prevailent based on a provincial match, than for dinosaurs, for whom the same vegetation would be diminished. 

 

Conclusion; Ecological zonanation, differential escapage, and biogeographical provincialism explain the order. At the very least they are reasons that do make sense of it. And something like provincialism is also factual in our world today remember, if a flood occurred today kangaroos might be obliterated and bison not, in the record but in life the bison go extinct and the kangaroos go on - then we could argue your argument - "show me a kangaroo in or before a bison layer". But what would that even mean if the "before" wasn't an era but was a zone flooded and preserved?

 

But notice it doesn't work because they might not have been preserved if they were separated.

 

So then the evolution-order under this explanation, would have to be forgotten, after all it is a weak order anyway, when you can only argue from silence, which is a proven fallacy. They used to argue all sorts of things didn't exist at certain ages, but now they have found those organisms. For all you know your bunny in the Cambrian did exist, but was located in all of the Cambrian rocks that don't now exist, but are argued to have been eroded away. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous (as I did to BK and he predictably ignored). You see there is no scope there for shifting the goal posts as you falsely accuse me of because the earliest Synapsids (mammal like reptiles) from which mammals evolved do not appear until the mid Carboniferous so you couldn’t possibly get a mammal before the basal group from which they diverged had arisen. It would be like finding you alive and well before your grandparents were born. All members of the synapsid clade disappeared at the end Permian mass extinction except the line that led to mammals, producing now extinct species that lived under the shadow of the dinosaurs until the end Cretaceous event. It’s amusing that you would triumphantly produce the mammal co existing with dinos example as an OOPF due to your lack of knowledge that this had long been understood to be the case. Similarly with birds, dinosaurs had not yet evolved in the Carboniferous so since birds evolved via the dinosaur line then an Archaeopteryx or an avocet from that period would make no sense.

 

The only lack of knowledge is yours, because you can't understand that there are such examples all over the place. For example, it is impossible if the pentadactyl limb evolved X amount of time ago from fish, that we should find amphibians with such a limb before their evolution, if that evolution itself is traced to a lineage dated in time

 

So if you were trying to make it look like I don't know this, nice try but no cigar;

 

Greatest Hoax on Earth, Page 134; Tracks of footprints found on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zalchemie Quarry in the Holy Cross mountains of Poland have turned the Palaeontological world upside down. This is because they are evidence of a 2 metre long four-limbed walking creature dated at 397 million years old. This predates all the alleged fish-totatrapod transitional forms.

 

See, some of us actually read beyond googling evo-articles.

 

So logically, it is not possible if the five digits evolved from later transitionals such as tiktaalik, to exist before their evolution if that evolution is predicated on those specific "transitionals" occurring at a time later than a fully developed walker.

 

 

I remember that the Polish footprints were brought up on this forum a few years ago by Gilbo when I was a mere lurker. As I recall Goku set him right. What Gilbo didn’t understand and apparently you still don’t either is that the fossil record cannot be seen as a direct lineage between taxa because evolution is a branching process. So the Polish tetrapod track maker can exist before the ‘fishapod’ transitional Tiktaalik because it likely did not evolve from Tiktaalik which instead would have been an evolutionary cousin on a side branch. The trackway did shake up the picture somewhat because it did pushback the physical evidence for the emergence of tetrapods by about 12 million years but the rational explanation is that, given the rarity of fossilisation coupled with unlikelihood of uncovering one, the probability of finding a tetrapod fossil increases once the clade becomes diverse and widespread (as I have explained to you before), but this is long after they actually first appeared in time.

 

However, this is small fry compared to what I am after. If you produced the trackway at a date before the group that gave rise to tetrapods appeared (lobe finned fish), then you would be talking.

 

Lol, the geographical provinces are argued BECAUSE of the separation of the fossil assemblages you ignoramus. I am embarassed for you, best to not use terms like "geographical provinces" (biogeographical in fact), without understanding what they mean, my lad.

 

 

In fact this complaint means nothing at all I'm afraid for the types of animals you would get in vertical place of each other, supercomposed, would mean under this explanation that the types you get in various "eras" would represent where they lived not when they evolved, which would give a pattern;

 

So Wibble, it seems to me you have confused an evolutionary history with a creationist history somehow because you've taken some terms you don't understand properly and tried to kind of conflate everything at once.

 

You have to think of it from the perspective of a creation model. The scientists are saying that the order you get, vertically, with differing creatures, don't contain certain things for the same reason that bison and antelope today wouldn't be found with kangaroos, that is what provincialism is, types of animals that live in similar niches but live in geographically separated zones. So when you say, "show me birds in the carboniferous" if they had not lived in that zone it wouldn't matter, even if the zone suited their lifestyle, because like today, this wouldn't mean we should find bison living with kangaroos. Under such an explanation, you are then requesting I show a bird preserved where it did not live. So it's nothing to do with an earlier time because you forget that we are not arguing the Carboniferous is an earlier time to begin with. (Gordon Bennet!)

So I’m an ignoramus now as well as a troll, nice.

 

I do look at it from a creationist perspective so I am quite clear that you do not see the various named layers as representing different times, I don’t know how you’ve got the opposite impression. I just don’t see how your provincial idea helps you at all.

 

Firstly, are you saying that there were different assemblages in different ecological zones and when the flood came along the inhabitants of each were kept separate by the raging waters and neatly gathered up from each area and organized into distinct vertically arranged layers, on top of each other ? And that’s not even considering other types of fossils such as trackways and ripple marks.

 

Secondly, individual species like bison don’t co exist with other individual species like kangaroos but a bird or a mammal isn’t an individual species, they are large groups containing thousands of species adapted to a myriad of habitats and niches. It is stretching credulity to put it mildly to expect that no representatives of such groups lived in a certain zone (like lush forested areas) that under your belief became strata representing the Carboniferous.

 

I hope you can see that I have not confused or conflated anything. I am just trying to be sure that you understand exactly what you are suggesting with this line of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous (as I did to BK and he predictably ignored). You see there is no scope there for shifting the goal posts as you falsely accuse me of because the earliest Synapsids (mammal like reptiles) from which mammals evolved do not appear until the mid Carboniferous so you couldn’t possibly get a mammal before the basal group from which they diverged had arisen. It would be like finding you alive and well before your grandparents were born. All members of the synapsid clade disappeared at the end Permian mass extinction except the line that led to mammals, producing now extinct species that lived under the shadow of the dinosaurs until the end Cretaceous event. It’s amusing that you would triumphantly produce the mammal co existing with dinos example as an OOPF due to your lack of knowledge that this had long been understood to be the case. Similarly with birds, dinosaurs had not yet evolved in the Carboniferous so since birds evolved via the dinosaur line then an Archaeopteryx or an avocet from that period would make no sense.

 

 

The only lack of knowledge is yours, because you can't understand that there are such examples all over the place. For example, it is impossible if the pentadactyl limb evolved X amount of time ago from fish, that we should find amphibians with such a limb before their evolution, if that evolution itself is traced to a lineage dated in time

So if you were trying to make it look like I don't know this, nice try but no cigar;

Greatest Hoax on Earth, Page 134; Tracks of footprints found on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zalchemie Quarry in the Holy Cross mountains of Poland have turned the Palaeontological world upside down. This is because they are evidence of a 2 metre long four-limbed walking creature dated at 397 million years old. This predates all the alleged fish-totatrapod transitional forms.

See, some of us actually read beyond googling evo-articles.

So logically, it is not possible if the five digits evolved from later transitionals such as tiktaalik, to exist before their evolution if that evolution is predicated on those specific "transitionals" occurring at a time later than a fully developed walker.

I remember that the Polish footprints were brought up on this forum a few years ago by Gilbo when I was a mere lurker. As I recall Goku set him right. What Gilbo didn’t understand and apparently you still don’t either is that the fossil record cannot be seen as a direct lineage between taxa because evolution is a branching process. So the Polish tetrapod track maker can exist before the ‘fishapod’ transitional Tiktaalik because it likely did not evolve from Tiktaalik which instead would have been an evolutionary cousin on a side branch. The trackway did shake up the picture somewhat because it did pushback the physical evidence for the emergence of tetrapods by about 12 million years but the rational explanation is that, given the rarity of fossilisation coupled with unlikelihood of uncovering one, the probability of finding a tetrapod fossil increases once the clade becomes diverse and widespread (as I have explained to you before), but this is long after they actually first appeared in time.

However, this is small fry compared to what I am after. If you produced the trackway at a date before the group that gave rise to tetrapods appeared (lobe finned fish), then you would be talking.

 

Lol, the geographical provinces are argued BECAUSE of the separation of the fossil assemblages you ignoramus. I am embarassed for you, best to not use terms like "geographical provinces" (biogeographical in fact), without understanding what they mean, my lad.

In fact this complaint means nothing at all I'm afraid for the types of animals you would get in vertical place of each other, supercomposed, would mean under this explanation that the types you get in various "eras" would represent where they lived not when they evolved, which would give a pattern;

So Wibble, it seems to me you have confused an evolutionary history with a creationist history somehow because you've taken some terms you don't understand properly and tried to kind of conflate everything at once.

You have to think of it from the perspective of a creation model. The scientists are saying that the order you get, vertically, with differing creatures, don't contain certain things for the same reason that bison and antelope today wouldn't be found with kangaroos, that is what provincialism is, types of animals that live in similar niches but live in geographically separated zones. So when you say, "show me birds in the carboniferous" if they had not lived in that zone it wouldn't matter, even if the zone suited their lifestyle, because like today, this wouldn't mean we should find bison living with kangaroos. Under such an explanation, you are then requesting I show a bird preserved where it did not live. So it's nothing to do with an earlier time because you forget that we are not arguing the Carboniferous is an earlier time to begin with. (Gordon Bennet!)

 

So I’m an ignoramus now as well as a troll, nice.

I do look at it from a creationist perspective so I am quite clear that you do not see the various named layers as representing different times, I don’t know how you’ve got the opposite impression. I just don’t see how your provincial idea helps you at all.

Firstly, are you saying that there were different assemblages in different ecological zones and when the flood came along the inhabitants of each were kept separate by the raging waters and neatly gathered up from each area and organized into distinct vertically arranged layers, on top of each other ? And that’s not even considering other types of fossils such as trackways and ripple marks.

Secondly, individual species like bison don’t co exist with other individual species like kangaroos but a bird or a mammal isn’t an individual species, they are large groups containing thousands of species adapted to a myriad of habitats and niches. It is stretching credulity to put it mildly to expect that no representatives of such groups lived in a certain zone (like lush forested areas) that under your belief became strata representing the Carboniferous.

I hope you can see that I have not confused or conflated anything. I am just trying to be sure that you understand exactly what you are suggesting with this line of argument.

 

"So I’m an ignoramus now as well as a troll, nice."

 

I dont know if being willingly ignorant makes someone an "Ignoramus" or not.. My Latin isnt that great..

 

 

"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wibble,

 

We seem to be have a couple of different arguments here. For the time being, let's focus on the evolution one.

 

I have never asked for a bunny in the Cambrian, that is just a weak attempt to reduce your problem. Merely showing me examples of organisms that are subsequently found older than previous examples of that type is not something out of place. As has been pointed out to you before it is hardly surprising that the first specimens of a particular taxon found don’t happen to also be the very earliest ones. A subsequent find is hardly going to shift its first appearance to a more recent date is it…

 

 

But don't you seem the problem here? There gets to be a point when the problem is narrowing time for the ToE to operate in. 

 

What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous

 

 But this is what Mike has been showing you. The term clade is very loose. So in your example, let's say Mike does cite an example of an indisputable mammal in the Mississippian. What do you think would happen? Either the ToE narrative would be edited to now say that the date of first appearance of mammals is earlier than first thought. Or, the date of the formation that it was found in, would be questioned and it would possibly be dated to a later time period. 

 

So let me ask you, what kind of discovery or lines of evidence would shake your faith in the ToE? What do you look for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have never asked for a bunny in the Cambrian, that is just a weak attempt to reduce your problem. Merely showing me examples of organisms that are subsequently found older than previous examples of that type is not something out of place. As has been pointed out to you before it is hardly surprising that the first specimens of a particular taxon found don’t happen to also be the very earliest ones. A subsequent find is hardly going to shift its first appearance to a more recent date is it…

But don't you seem the problem here? There gets to be a point when the problem is narrowing time for the ToE to operate in.

 

 

You make out there is a problem, well there isn’t from what’s been offered so far.

 

What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous

But this is what Mike has been showing you. The term clade is very loose.

 

No he hasn’t and no it isn’t.

 

So in your example, let's say Mike does cite an example of an indisputable mammal in the Mississippian. What do you think would happen? Either the ToE narrative would be edited to now say that the date of first appearance of mammals is earlier than first thought. Or, the date of the formation that it was found in, would be questioned and it would possibly be dated to a later time period.

You can hypothesise as much as you want but a mammal will not be found in the lower Carboniferous (had to look up when Mississippian was because that name isn’t used here). If one was found it would be very hard to accommodate within the evolutionary picture since we only have basal tetrapods at that point. This is what I mean about there being no examples of fossils being out of place because how could there be mammals before synapsids had appeared ? I’m sure you’re right that the date of the stratum would be questioned but if it was securely dated then it would have to be accepted. If the specimen was something recognizably modern (cat, horse, sloth, take your pick) any time before the Cretaceous really but especially in the Palaeozoic, then never mind editing, the book would have to be thrown out.

 

So let me ask you, what kind of discovery or lines of evidence would shake your faith in the ToE? What do you look for?

See above plus I’ve already answered a similar question to BK in post 558. By the way, I don't have "faith" in the ToE, I accept it because of the evidence.

 

What about you, what evidence would falsify creationism ? Same question to Blitzking. No point asking Mike W, he has stated upfront that there is no possible evidence that could convince him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have never asked for a bunny in the Cambrian, that is just a weak attempt to reduce your problem. Merely showing me examples of organisms that are subsequently found older than previous examples of that type is not something out of place. As has been pointed out to you before it is hardly surprising that the first specimens of a particular taxon found don’t happen to also be the very earliest ones. A subsequent find is hardly going to shift its first appearance to a more recent date is it…

 

But don't you seem the problem here? There gets to be a point when the problem is narrowing time for the ToE to operate in.

 

You make out there is a problem, well there isn’t from what’s been offered so far.

 

What is never shown, and is what I ask for is a fossil of something appearing before the clade it belongs to had diverged from a common ancestor. Which is why I ask for things like birds or mammals in the Carboniferous

 

But this is what Mike has been showing you. The term clade is very loose.

 

No he hasn’t and no it isn’t.

 

So in your example, let's say Mike does cite an example of an indisputable mammal in the Mississippian. What do you think would happen? Either the ToE narrative would be edited to now say that the date of first appearance of mammals is earlier than first thought. Or, the date of the formation that it was found in, would be questioned and it would possibly be dated to a later time period.

 

You can hypothesise as much as you want but a mammal will not be found in the lower Carboniferous (had to look up when Mississippian was because that name isn’t used here). If one was found it would be very hard to accommodate within the evolutionary picture since we only have basal tetrapods at that point. This is what I mean about there being no examples of fossils being out of place because how could there be mammals before synapsids had appeared ? I’m sure you’re right that the date of the stratum would be questioned but if it was securely dated then it would have to be accepted. If the specimen was something recognizably modern (cat, horse, sloth, take your pick) any time before the Cretaceous really but especially in the Palaeozoic, then never mind editing, the book would have to be thrown out.

 

So let me ask you, what kind of discovery or lines of evidence would shake your faith in the ToE? What do you look for?

 

See above plus I’ve already answered a similar question to BK in post 558. By the way, I don't have "faith" in the ToE, I accept it because of the evidence.

What about you, what evidence would falsify creationism ? Same question to Blitzking. No point asking Mike W, he has stated upfront that there is no possible evidence that could convince him.

"the book would have to be thrown out."

 

But, of course, no such thing would ever happen and you know that..

 

 

"What about you, what evidence would falsify creationism ? Same question to Blitzking"

 

SIMPLE..We can start with you creating a self replicating DNA molecule from dead matter (Inorganic Chemicals) Creation would be proven to be NOT the only possible explanation for life.. Accidentalism would also have a seat at the table that it does NOT CURRENTLY HAVE..

 

END OF STORY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transitionals would be supportive, and so would their absence, bunnies in the Cambrian would falsify, and yet in reality if they find things earlier they just "push back" evolution to an earlier time. Instead of "once upon a time" it becomes, "once upon a longer ago time". Goku surely you must notice yourself, how all the angles are covered. Think now of homologies, they show evo, but of course not when they don't agree with the story, and then hey presto, it was still evo, only we will call it "convergence" and simply place the evo elsewhere if we can't place it where we want it initially.

 

It depends on the scenario, and other factors involved. For example the tiktaalik find and the subsequent tetrapod transitional a few million years earlier is in no way a point against evolution. As others have pointed out the fossil record is incomplete, and you shouldn't expect the first fossil found of a given group to necessarily be the oldest specimen within that group; it is expected that sometimes groups will be 'pushed back'. Because of evolution's branching pattern there is wiggle room in finding the age of a transitional fossil (never mind if a group/species hits a local maximum on the fitness landscape for a given niche with that niche being stable over long periods of time you can get 'living fossils' and the like). In the specific case of tiktaalik researchers specifically went to that location knowing that they should find the tetrapod transition somewhere around that geological time frame, and the subsequent find was in the same basic geological time frame.

 

I guess the big picture view is that something like that example is rewriting the finer points of the evolutionary history uncovered so far, but it does not break the overall pattern evolutionary theory and history has given us. What Wibble is asking for is an example of a fossil that does not merely rewrite the finer details, but instead completely shatters the evolutionary pattern in such a way as to demonstrate that it is irrevocably flawed. So far no such fossil has been found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wibble 

 

There is a problem. Because every time that a fossil is found that is in a strata that is regarded as older, it pushes the evolutionary narrative, for that group, further back in time. While the theory "adjusts", it also means that evolution must have occurred in a narrower range of time. Think of the Cambrian "explosion" problem.

 

The term "clade" is very loose. Here is more info:

 

78818_evo_resources_resource_image_261_s

Clades (2 of 2) Nested clades
Clades are nested within one another — they form a nested hierarchy. A clade may include many thousands of species or just a few. Some examples of clades at different levels are marked on these phylogenies. Notice how clades are nested within larger clades.
dot_clear.gif


https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/imagedetail.php?id=260

 

So are you talking about the genus, family, order, phyla, etc level? The answer is, it depends. In your case, you cite the example of Synapsids. This is a class or sub-class, quite a broad level, taxonomically speaking. 

 

"Phylogenetically, synapsids are the entire synapsid/mammal branch of the tree of life"  if you like to read Wikipedia. 

 

 

 

 

...earliest Synapsids (mammal like reptiles) from which mammals evolved do not appear until the mid Carboniferous so you couldn’t possibly get a mammal before the basal group from which they diverged had arisen.

 

 

So the ToE narrative goes. And it makes sense. Of course no one will be born before their "grandparents" are born. We all understand genealogy. But it is an assertion that synapsids are the ancestor to mammals. The biological definition of mammals is based on shared characteristics of warm-bloodedness, fur, and milk production. As you know, these characteristics are rarely preserved in the fossil record. Synapspids, are a classification based on skull and fenestra configuration. Maybe some synapsids were mammals, based on the biologic definition. Without more data, we can't really be certain. Also, it can not be said that no synapsids fossils will ever be found in older strata. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. And even if the date is pushed back, it won't falsify the ToE. 

 

 I don't have "faith" in the ToE, I accept it because of the evidence.

 

I'm sorry to say, but there is a certain amount of "faith" on your part. Here is the thing. It is in the interpretation of the evidence, not in the data or the existence of the fossils themselves. 

 

What about you, what evidence would falsify creationism ? Same question to Blitzking. No point asking Mike W, he has stated upfront that there is no possible evidence that could convince him.

 

 

 

I have never claimed to be a Creationist or proponent of a 6000 year old Earth. OTOH, I recognize that we could be misinterpreting some parts of the geologic record. I used to believe in the ToE, but have switched to favor ID Theory. I can look at the same data as you but reach a different interpretation, one that I think is more predictive. I would ask myself different questions than you probably ask yourself, regarding evolution. 

 

Much of the ToE is based on the construction of a morphological sequence of organisms through various layers of strata. It is logical to attempt this construction. But there are a couple of basic assumptions that, if incorrect, leave the potential for error. For example, does morphological similarity only equal common descent or can it also mean common design? What corroborating evidence can be gleaned from experiments? Are there limits to how far evolution can take a "clade" of organisms?

 

I think too many people confuse the fact that since some evolution (micro) is true, then the conclusions of the ToE must also be true. (UCA model)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms