The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

Status
Not open for further replies.

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here I will expose one of the greatest illusions of the Evolutionary smoke-and-mirrors show. It is actually very simple when you stop to think about it. The problem is that we have mantras rammed into our heads for so long that we lose the ability to critically examine them.

First, to establish the Evolutionists' claim.

Niles Eldridge, American Museum of Natural History: "We have been looking at the fossil record as a general test of the notion that life has evolved: To falsify that general idea, we would have to show that forms of life we considered more advanced appear earlier than the simpler forms." (Monkey Business, p. 46,1982)

Steven M. Stanley, John Hopkins University: "There is an infinite variety of ways in which, since 1859, the general concept of evolution might have been demolished. Consider the fossil record - a little known resource in Darwin's day. The unequivocal discovery of a fossil population of horses in Precambrian rocks would disprove evolution. More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory, yet not a single one has come to light. As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction." (The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.171)

I'm assuming most evolutionists would agree with the above claims concerning the potential falsifiability of Evolution. We hear similar claims from evolutionists constantly... "We have the fossils. We win." They present the same story to the public, that Evolution is supposedly so well-confirmed because of its potential falsifiability... that "a single out of place fossil" would destroy the theory.

However this claim is really based on intellectual sleight-of-hand.

Let me explain. With Evolution, we're really talking about two different things.

1. A general Evolutionary belief
2. The modern theory of Evolution


As for #1, a cursory examination of history will reveal that a general Evolutionary worldview existed long before the modern "theory of Evolution" arising with Charles Darwin. Ancient Greek mystics believed in Evolution or universal common descent. Before Charles was even born, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (among others) wrote extensively on the belief that all of life had evolved from a common ancestor. Thus it is clear to see that a general belief in the metaphysics of Evolution and universal common descent existed prior to the advent of the "theory of Evolution".

It is important to separate the two within a historical context in order to expose the ad-hoc nature in which a "theory of Evolution" was formulated in response to the Evolutionary belief.


Now since we are talking about fossils, it is very important to note that a general fossil pattern was emerging *before* the advent of the modern theory of evolution. Early paleontologists were already recording a general pattern of small marine creatures/shelly fauna in the bottom most layers, followed by what was described as an "Age of Reptiles" in middle layers, and lastly the "higher" mammalian groups found in the upper layers. Again, this fossil pattern was established *before* the establishment of the "theory" of Evolution.

Now for a simple question. Why are evolutionists claiming that the fossil record is a "test" of their theory, when the theory itself was built around the already known fossil record?

This leads us to another question. What exactly does Evolution actually predict about the order in which animals will arise on Earth? When we see such and such animal with such and such anatomy, we are told that it arose through random variation and natural selection... in other words, the animals "evolved" that way mostly because of certain environmental conditions. Again, with that in mind, what does Evolution really predict concerning a potential sequence of fossils left in its wake?

FOR EXAMPLE:

Evolutionists make a big deal about 'higher' mammal fossils not appearing until Paleogene rock layers following the Cretaceous... Evolutionists assert that this is because the appropriate environmental or ecological niches selecting for mammalian anatomy did not appear until this time period.

OK. So what if the early paleontologists had discovered a pattern of mammal fossils appearing much "earlier" such as within Permian/Triassic layers, prior to or contemporaneous with the early appearances of reptiles and dinosaurs? We already know the answer. Evolutionists would have hypothesized that this is because ecological niches selected for mammalian anatomy at this time. Such an evolutionary order sounds bizarre to us today, but rest assured, a century of Evolutionary orthodoxy would have made a "Triassic Mammalian Radiation" sound as normal today as something like the "Cambrian Explosion".... Undoubtedly, an in-depth evolutionary narrative would have been written around such a pattern, limited only by the creative imagineering of what natural selection could do.

It's easy to imagine countless other examples similar to the above. Basically, as soon as you have a terrestrial vertebrate "common ancestor" all bets are off as to which orders will evolve in what sequence. Perhaps the "ecological niches" for dinosaurs would not manifest until long after the advanced mammals (even primates and humans) are walking the Earth. This would completely thrown the orthodox evolutionary narrative on its head, but interestingly Evolution has no established constraints to state such an order could not have potentially occurred.

Again, it's all a matter of which traits happen to be selected for at what times. A primitive diapsid (reptile) lineage could potentially remain in stasis for hundreds of millions of years, while therapsid/mammalian lineages rapidly diversify and evolve. The possibilities are endless. Hopefully you're starting to get the point. Evolution actually predicts very little in regards to a fossil order. Many different Common Ancestry stories could have been written to accommodate many different fossil orders.

Now what of the claim that such fossils would have to be constrained to a "nested hierarchy of anatomical traits" ? Here we run into a similar scenario of Evolution being able to accommodate too much contradictory data sets. For example, what if a pattern had emerged of bird fossils appearing before theropod dinosaurs? This one is fairly obvious. The evolutionary narrative would have adapted to say that birds evolved within some other possibly diapsid order, and Theropod dinosaurs subsequently evolved from birds. Perhaps then other dinosaurs may have evolved from Theropoda. In a similar reversing process, reptiles could be said to have evolved out of mammalian traits if reptiles did not appear until after mammals. (if the data forced such a conclusion) Mammals could potentially be viewed as quite a primitive terrestrial order. Remember, fossils DO NOT have to be in rock layer sequence for Evolutionists to claim them as a transitional sequence. They simply have to exhibit "transitional anatomy". This fact alone opens the door wide for ad-hoc evolutionary narratives.

(side note: You will find the same sense of malleability permeating throughout any other direction evolutionists would like to take their theory to make it appear more constrained to specific data. The idea of molecular clocks, for example, are highly prone to ad-hoc adjustments...)

So this is how the sleight-of-hand works. Evolution theory adapted itself to a known fossil record, and then its proponents later began to claim that the fossil record is actually some kind of rigorous test for the theory.

Now I'm not claiming that discovering certain fossil orders (like Cambrian mammals) wouldn't have posed more of an explanatory problem for Evolution. But in general, as I've demonstrated, an Evolutionary narrative could have potentially accommodated countless and substantially different fossil orders as they would emerge in earlier centuries. If you understand the underlying logical structure of Evolution theory, then this becomes readily apparent. Evolution is like a fog that settles over the landscape of data.

At best evolutionists can say that the fossil order that was known before Evolution theory, continued to hold to its original pattern. Yet clearly Evolution theory could have potentially run with any number of different patterns.

Basically, Evolution was destined to become the world's orthodox creation story as soon as enough academics and other social forces began subscribing to it philosophically. Like a jello mold, the emerging theory would naturally arrange itself into whatever data constraints came its way, strung along by the tautology of natural selection - or "That which survives, survives."

So even though the logic of such claims is highly illusory, we will continue to hear for generations to come that the fossil record is some amazing "test of Evolution". The Evolutionists' mantra is a lot easier to say than the time it takes to deconstruct and expose it.

...And at the end of the day, most people do not give a hoot about "science" anyways. They need Evolution to be true in order to continue the cultural story of man's "Enlightenment", and to continue to live in their sins and ignore the true God of the Bible and the salvation by Jesus Christ. Thus the world will continue to defend the illusion of Evolution and condemn any who question it.

My hope is that at least some readers on the fence, (especially professing Christians), may start to wonder if the supposedly scientifically ironclad nature of Evolution theory is not what it appears to be. Underneath all of the jargon and bull-horning, there is a lot of this type of thing going on.

Universal common descent did not happen. God was very clear about this in His Word.
 

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So your argument against evolution is "if the evidence was different, the theory would be different"?

Basically yes. An Evolutionary creation narrative would have been wrapped around whatever data set emerged. It predicts very little and accommodates very much.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Basically yes. An Evolutionary creation narrative would have been wrapped around whatever data set emerged. It predicts very little and accommodates very much.

Scientific theories explain observable facts. If you have different observable facts then you have different theories. How is your OP an argument against evolution? I don't think you've thought this through....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Wren
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Scientific theories explain observable facts. If you have different observable facts then you have different theories. How is your OP an argument against evolution? I don't think you've thought this through....

I'm not arguing about what a scientific theory is. I'm explaining how fossils are not actually a rigorous test confirming that Evolution (universal common descent) is provisionally true, (as is so often presented).

Like you said, if the "evidence" was different, then the theory would be different. That may seem trite until you really stop to think about it with regards to how the evolutionary community presents the fossils as screaming "Evolution!" from the rocks in a supposedly highly specific manner.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
I'm not arguing about what a scientific theory is. I'm explaining how fossils are not actually a rigorous test confirming that Evolution (universal common descent) is provisionally true, (as is so often presented).

Like you said, if the "evidence" was different, then the theory would be different. That may seem trite until you really stop to think about it with regards to how the evolutionary community presents the fossils as screaming "Evolution!" from the rocks in a supposedly highly specific manner.

Guy, the fossil record is evidence of evolution. If the fossil record was different then the theory would be different. If there was a fossil record that was inconsistent with common descent then there would be no theory of common descent.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Basically yes. An Evolutionary creation narrative would have been wrapped around whatever data set emerged. It predicts very little and accommodates very much.

Exactly right.

I have to wonder why scientists can't tell me ... ahead of time ... what they should find at any given point on earth, if evolution is supposedly so accurate.

The example I asked for, if my memory serves me correctly, was:

What should evolutionists find buried in the earth 100 feet below the Taj Mahal?

Anyone can plug a fossil find into some computer and have the computer play connect-the-dots.

But telling us ... ahead of time ... what we should find can't, in my opinion, be done.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Exactly right.

I have to wonder why scientists can't tell me ... ahead of time ... what they should find at any given point on earth, if evolution is supposedly so accurate.

The example I asked for, if my memory serves me correctly, was:

What should evolutionists find buried in the earth 100 feet below the Taj Mahal?

Anyone can plug a fossil find into some computer and have the computer play connect-the-dots.

But telling us ... ahead of time ... what we should find can't, in my opinion, be done.

I believe that question was answered by using a more realistic and less silly example.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Guy, the fossil record is evidence of evolution.

Okay, so you're just resorting to mantras. Maybe this thread isn't for you if you'd rather not examine the subject.

And there's a major difference between evidence and accommodation. If a theory predicts both XYZ and Not-XYZ, then neither result can honestly be claimed as "evidence". I explained in the OP how Evolution predicts countless different potential fossil orders for the simple reason that it can accommodate so many potential differing fossil orders. Thus it is disingenuous to claim a particular fossil order as "evidence". Many will have an emotional problem with that, but there it is.

If the fossil record was different then the theory would be different. If there was a fossil record that was inconsistent with common descent then there would be no theory of common descent.

As I explained, Common Descent can potentially accommodate substantially differing fossil records, which you appear to agree. Thus there is no logical reason to view the fossil record as specifically Evolutionary in nature. Yet evolutionists erroneously tell themselves and others that this is the case.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Okay, so you're just resorting to mantras. Maybe this thread isn't for you if you'd rather not examine the subject.

And there's a major difference between evidence and accommodation. If a theory predicts both XYZ and Not-XYZ, then neither result can honestly be claimed as "evidence". I explained in the OP how Evolution predicts countless different potential fossil orders for the simple reason that it can accommodate so many potential differing fossil orders. Thus it is disingenuous to claim a particular fossil order as "evidence". Many will have an emotional problem with that, but there it is.



As I explained, Common Descent can potentially accommodate substantially differing fossil records, which you appear to agree. Thus there is no logical reason to view the fossil record as specifically Evolutionary in nature. Yet evolutionists erroneously tell themselves and others that this is the case.

I'm not repeating a mantra. The fossil record shows an increasing level of biological diversity leading to the life we have today. If it didn't show that, then the theory would be different. If the evidence wasn't there we would not have the same theory. That's not an argument against evolution. That's just a what if question.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not repeating a mantra. The fossil record shows an increasing level of biological diversity leading to the life we have today.

"increasing diversity" is a very ambiguous phrase. Any number of different fossil orders could also show "increasing diversity". As in the provided example, many different dinosaurian lineages appearing only after mammal fossils would also be increasing diversity.


If it didn't show that, then the theory would be different. If the evidence wasn't there we would not have the same theory. That's not an argument against evolution. That's just a what if question.

Okay, but the "what-if" question (or however you'd like to characterize it) happens to demonstrate that Evolution theory does not predict the fossil record in any specific way but instead only accommodated it. Thus the popular claim that the fossil record specifically shows universal common descent is false, as is the claim that "God made nature look like evolution". Professing Christians who believe in Evolution should rethink their position and side with God's Word. (And I know most atheists do not care about the science in the first place.)

I didn't claim this "disproved" Evolution or anything like that, if that's what you're trying to get at. Disproving something that was never scientifically persuasive in the first place is not on my agenda.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
"increasing diversity" is a very ambiguous phrase. Any number of different fossil orders could also show "increasing diversity". As in the provided example, many different dinosaurian lineages appearing only after mammal fossils would also be increasing diversity.




Okay, but the "what-if" question (or however you'd like to characterize it) happens to demonstrate that Evolution theory does not predict the fossil record in any specific way but instead only accommodated it. Thus the popular claim that the fossil record specifically shows universal common descent is false, as is the claim that "God made nature look like evolution". Professing Christians who believe in Evolution should rethink their position and side with God's Word. (And I know most atheists do not care about the science in the first place.)

I didn't claim this "disproved" Evolution or anything like that, if that's what you're trying to get at. Disproving something that was never scientifically persuasive in the first place is not on my agenda.

If the fossil record was different then there would be different predictions. I'm still not understanding your point. If we had different evidence, we would not have the same theory. You seem to be saying that if we had different evidence we would still have the same theory. That is ludicrous.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,806
36,105
Los Angeles Area
✟820,380.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Now for a simple question. Why are evolutionists claiming that the fossil record is a "test" of their theory, when the theory itself was built around the already known fossil record?


Because we're still digging them up.

This leads us to another question. What exactly does Evolution actually predict about the order in which animals will arise on Earth?


Many creatures have features that derived from those of earlier lifeforms. These derived features should appear after the features from which they derived. If mammalian earbones are derived from bones of the reptile jaw, then mammals must appear after reptiles.

OK. So what if the early paleontologists had discovered a pattern of mammal fossils appearing much "earlier" such as within Permian/Triassic layers, prior to or contemporaneous with the early appearances of reptiles and dinosaurs? We already know the answer. Evolutionists would have hypothesized that this is because ecological niches selected for mammalian anatomy at this time.


Wrong!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Wren
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If the fossil record was different then there would be different predictions. I'm still not understanding your point. If we had different evidence, we would not have the same theory.
You seem to be saying that if we had different evidence we would still have the same theory. That is ludicrous.

I already went over this point repeatedly. It would only be a different theory of the particulars of how life "evolved" (which animal groups arose at which times). The preceding evolutionary belief, by its nature, was designed to be able to adapt to countless different fossil orders and subsequently manifest as a "theory". I explained this in the OP.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because we're still digging them up.

The general fossil order pattern is holding. But evolutionists never predicted that pattern in the first place, (and can't even in principle make such predictions) as I've explained. It can hardly be considered a robust "test", when that which was already known before your theory, continues to be.

Hypothetically speaking, if some 19th century Ancient-Alien cult had looked at the known fossil order and developed a theory that aliens created generations of dinosaurs before mammals, etc. etc. then the present-day fossil order would be just as much an enduring "test" of their theory.

At the end of the day, the fossil order is simply a pattern, but not a specifically Evolutionary one. We know this is true because Evolution does not explain the fossil order any more than it could 'explain' countless others.


Many creatures have features that derived from those of earlier lifeforms. These derived features should appear after the features from which they derived.

Strange circular reasoning you're invoking here, as a feature is inferred to be "derived" mainly by the fossil order itself. Theropod dinosaur morphology could be "derived" from Birds instead of the other way around, if advanced bird morphology appeared before dinosaurs.

If mammalian earbones are derived from bones of the reptile jaw, then mammals must appear after reptiles.

Yet mammalian earbones are claimed to be derived from a reptilian jaw because they appear after reptiles. If reptiles did not appear until after mammals than the opposite could be inferred.

This becomes obvious when we consider the fact that Thomas Huxley himself who lead the establishment of Evolution orthodoxy, originally claimed that mammals evolved directly from amphibians to the exclusion of reptiles based on similar anatomy. Thus if the fossil record had yielded patterns of reptiles above mammals, the supposed jaw/ear transformation could be said to have gone the other way around, from mammalian to reptilian.

Evolution theory is quite malleable in how it can create a narrative around the data - like an amorphous fog settling around a varied landscape.



non-response.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
They have no evidence at all - and what they do have is 2 of every 3 incorrectly classified as a separate species in the fossil record to bolster their religious beliefs in evolution. But they don't want to talk about what this does to thier tree - or the gaps that would automatically become larger and larger as more and more are correctly identified.

 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Evolution theory is quite malleable in how it can create a narrative around the data - like an amorphous fog settling around a varied landscape.

It is silly putty that can be molded to take on any shape one desires to construct - and therefore not a valid theory at all. With every falsification they alter the facade while the foundation continues to rot beneath them. Doesn't matter to them at all that every single fossil they have found of any species is the same from the oldest one found to the youngest one found. Nor does it matter to them that 2 of every 3 have been shown to be an incorrect classification. All that matters is that the facts do not get in the way of theory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They have no evidence at all - and what they do have is 2 of every 3 incorrectly classified as a separate species in the fossil record to bolster their religious beliefs in evolution. But they don't want to talk about what this does to thier tree - or the gaps that would automatically become larger and larger as more and more are correctly identified.


Yes, regarding that presentation, it's mind-boggling to think about how many other varied anatomical traits are assumed to be the product of separate lineages evolving them over millions of years, when they may simply be the same animal at different life stages. This problem is compounded when we consider the fact that the same animal growing up in a totally different environments may exhibit significantly varied morphologies (a phenomena known as Phenotypic Plasticity). All of this equals lots of apparent variation that has nothing to do with Darwinian processes of selection acting on variation. It goes to show how much subjectivity abounds in evolutionary research.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.