My counter-daisy-chain challenge

[Chris B]

I am not asking for "every species".

Again, a tooth of any animal will suffice as representative of that year.

Not the whole zoological garden.

So if we have evidence for a particular animal species say 110 million years ago, and also for 100 million years ago, we are to take as equally likely to the position that this species existed over that period of time, the position that the species may have "poofed" out of existence and amazingly "poofed" back in almost identical form ten million years later?
(when we happen to have another preserved sample of it)



Aside: can anyone here give me a heads-up on the current best guesses on the Poe situation?
It's been a long time since I've seen such a concentration of examples.

Chris

 

[RealityCheck01]

In order to accept evolution, AV asks for a complete fossil record of every species to have ever lived.

Which is of course a demand that ignores the real world where not every animal that existed became a fossil

What AV1611VET says his demand is also nothing to do with the world we live in:

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

Firstly this is nothing to do with evolution. A tooth from animal A in year X is unrelated in evolution to a femur from animal Z in year X+1.

Secondly this is not a daisy chain because each sample is unrelated to the others.

Thirdly there are not billions of "physical biological evidence" in existence that have been dated to provide a year by year account of the last 3.5 billion years. Estimates of the number of fossils that have been collected are in the millions. So if we date all of them then we could satisfy an irrelevant demand for a 1000 year by 1000 year history (with some variation of course).

Thus currently the demand is not even wrong. Given enough time we will have that year by year random selection of artifacts though. It will still have nothing to do with evolution.

Then we would get the unreal demand of a day by day history ! Then a minute by minute demand. Then a second by second demand. Then a microsecond by microsecond demand. etc. .

So what we have looks like an attempt to refer to the already debunked for oh so many years "there are no transitional fossils" claim: Claim CC200

Response:
1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

 

[Strathos]

In other words, AV can't answer the challenge. So why should he expect other people to answer his?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have a feeling you couldn't anyway.

You would need about 3.5 billion items on display somewhere.

From the first cyanobacterium, to y-Adam.

Daisy chained.

I'm baffled how you can not realise how intellectually dishonest you are.

Do you really believe yourself that you are making a point here of any kind?

I mean... other then demonstrating how intellectually dishonest you are and how irrelevant your postings are on these topics?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mamma mia.



I said ONE artifact from each year (a tooth, a rib, whatever), lined up next to the artifact from the next year, and so one and so forth.

You know ... daisy-chained.

If you have three teeth, two ribs, and a leg bone from ... say ... 49,625 BC -- all I want is either ONE TOOTH, ONE RIB, or the LEG BONE.

Then place it next to ... say ... a jawbone from 49,624 BC -- etc.

I'm sure I'll regret this ... but....

Why?
What would be the point of this "daisy chain"? What would it show?

 

[RealityCheck01]

What would be the point of this "daisy chain"? What would it show?

Maybe the ignorance behind the original question ?
The basic one that not every animal that dies produces a fossil so we expect an annual record to be currently impossible.
The lack of knowledge of English - "daisy-chaining" implies that there is a relationship between the fossils which is not the case. The only relationship is their dating.
A hint of the "god of the gaps" argument to which the reply is the "science filling the enormous gaps in the Bible" argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

What would be the point of this "daisy chain"? What would it show?

A daisy chain would, of course, be proof of biological evolution.

The lack of one, as is the case, is so severe it creates an fps show of instant creation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A daisy chain would, of course, be proof of biological evolution.

No, AV1611VET: the "daisy chain' shows the stupidity of the argument (if it has to do with evolution) because it has nothing to do with evolution. The mere fact that fossils exist for various dates says that such a history is possible.

The lack of a compete fossil record is expected except from especially ignorant anti-evolutionists. They are so dumb that they think that every animal dies and becomes a fossil !

That we see evolution happening in the fossil record even in its incomplete state is evidence for the fact of evolution.

ETA: An analogy - take a pack of 52 cards. Shuffle the pack and number them 1 to 52. Shuffle again. Lay the cards out on a table in numeric order - you now have the analogy of an annual fossil history.
This tells you nothing about any ace, two, three, etc. ordering of the cards. It does not tell you about suits. It does not tell you about card colors. It does not even tell you about the decoration on the back of the cards !

 

[AV1611VET]

No, AV1611VET: the "daisy chain' shows the stupidity of the argument (if it has to do with evolution) because it has nothing to do with evolution.

I totally disagree.

If you're telling me that an unbroken fossil trail, leading back to cyanobacteria, doesn't prove biological evolution, then I don't know what will.

 

[RealityCheck01]

If you're telling me that an unbroken fossil trail, leading back to cyanobacteria, doesn't prove biological evolution, then I don't know what will.

I am telling you that is not what you have asked for, AV1611VET .
Try reading what you wrote:

I said ONE artifact from each year (a tooth, a rib, whatever), lined up next to the artifact from the next year, and so one and so forth.

You know ... daisy-chained.

If you have three teeth, two ribs, and a leg bone from ... say ... 49,625 BC -- all I want is either ONE TOOTH, ONE RIB, or the LEG BONE.

Then place it next to ... say ... a jawbone from 49,624 BC -- etc.

You have asked for a random selection from the fossil record for each year from all of the fossils that have been collected.
You have the rather stupid demand for a complete fossil record that seems based on the fantasy that every animal dies and makes a fossil. Any one who knows about the real world where fossilization is not common will expect gaps in the fossil record,

The evidence for evolution from the fossil record is not randomly selected fossils, AV1611VET. The evidence for evolution from the fossil record is observing that fossils change with time and turn into new species, e.g. the evolution of the whale.

If it were possible to have an "unbroken fossil trail, leading back to cyanobacteria" then of course that would be further confirming evidence to add to the enormous body of evidence for evolution, e.g. from the existing fossil record..

 

[AV1611VET]

I am telling you that is not what you have asked for, AV1611VET .
You have asked for a random selection from the fossil record for each year from all of the fossils that have been collected.

Either way, you can't produce one.

Getting you guys to admit it ... well ... that's why it's called a "challenge."

 

[RealityCheck01]

Either way, you can't produce one.

Either way it is a totally ignorant demand in several ways AV1611VET !.

1. A collection of random fossils forming a annual history is just dumb. It has nothing to do with evolution.
2. The demand to form an annual history illustrating evolution is beyond totally ignorant.
3. It ignores the real world in which not every animal fossilizes. It ignores the real world in which we have not collected every fossil that exists.
4. We do not have to do that. All we need to do is sample enough of the past to detect evolution in action. And we have done that

Getting you guys to admit it ... well ... that's why it's called a "challenge."

You have no "challenge" - you have a statement about a profound ignorance of the real world as above, AV1611VET.
I freely admit that the "challenge" is totally ignorant .

Let see: We have a rather irrational demand for an annual fossil record. This smacks of the usual anti-science demand for every transitional fossil even if it does not exist

Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.


2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
...

ETA: This may also be the good, old and silly "gods of the gaps argument", i.e. if there is a gap in the evidence then the gods of the week did it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either way it is a totally ignorant demand in several ways ...

Sweet.

Far be it from me to break my own mold, eh?

 

[Strathos]

Either way, you can't produce one.

Getting you guys to admit it ... well ... that's why it's called a "challenge."

And you can't produce a genealogy from Adam and Eve to your parents.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm baffled how you can not realise how intellectually dishonest you are.

Do you really believe yourself that you are making a point here of any kind?

I mean... other then demonstrating how intellectually dishonest you are and how irrelevant your postings are on these topics?

Just remember he's being a witness for Christ when he does this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just remember he's being a witness for Christ when he does this.

Am I being a witness for Christ when I claim a literal Genesis 1?

On a forum where believing in a jot or tittle of the Bible is considered "intellectually dishonest," I guess I'm a lousy witness, eh?

 

[pgp_protector]

Am I being a witness for Christ when I claim a literal Genesis 1?

On a forum where believing in a jot or tittle of the Bible is considered "intellectually dishonest," I guess I'm a lousy witness, eh?

Do you take offence at your actions being called a witness for Christ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you take offence at your actions being called a witness for Christ?

Coming from you ... yes.

Remember hinting that I was using a bot ( 2 )?

Remember those disgusting pics you put in my VM box?

I had to appeal to admin to get them removed.

And now this?

Were your actions a witness for Christ?

 

[pgp_protector]

Coming from you ... yes.

Was I in error and you're not trying to be a witness for Christ?
If so I apologize.

 

[AV1611VET]

Was I in error and you're not trying to be a witness for Christ?
If so I apologize.

QV my post.

I've added to it.