Are there transitional fossils?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah so it's because "he said" and "she said" but with a lack of explanation on why.

Anyway, hydrogeology is a demonstrable and tested science. Every geologist, hydrologist and sedimentologists in the world know about this. The Waterways Experiment Station, also known as WES-Original Cantonment in Vicksburg, Mississippi, the world's foremost hydrology laboratory run by a core of engineers and experts. It's a multi-billion dollar facility. They perform experimentations with water and sediments everyday there to predict where the worse erosion will take place and where to spend the next millions of dollars into controlling the Mississippi River. In those experiments they create strata all the time.

So Hydrologists are well aware that strata are formed by moving water. It's only when you move into the realm of evolutionary processes in uniformitarianism it becomes less science and more dogmatic. The science that hydrologists and sedimentologists are well aware of is conveniently forgotten.

And that still doesn't support your claim that the sediments were lain down quickly, a claim which you have given no evidence for. So it's ironic that you would make a claim about a lack of explanation but then you do the exact same thing you blame others of doing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's look at the data. Sedimentary rock is laid down by sedimentary processes. Since these sedimentary layers are worldwide, are you guys suggesting not one worldwide flood, but hundreds of them? If on the other hand they were caused by weathering and then deposited by water, it would still mean this was a worldwide event. Not to mention the same type of rock would have to be available over eons to be weathered and placed down in those vast beds if we assume vast periods of time.

Personally I have no problems with an old earth, nor do I have problems with a young earth interpretation. I can give evidence for both so choose to remain open to either interpretation. As a matter of fact whenever I debate a young earth interpretation, it is usually the evolutionist that scrambles to ignore the very science he claims to follow.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And that still doesn't support your claim that the sediments were lain down quickly, a claim which you have given no evidence for. So it's ironic that you would make a claim about a lack of explanation but then you do the exact same thing you blame others of doing.

So you would have people believe that the same type of sediment was laid down for millions of years, then abruptly a different type was laid down for millions of years, etc, etc?

We certainly don't see that happening today with weathering. Instead a vast mixture is weathered and deposited in no discernible manner.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let's look at the data. Sedimentary rock is laid down by sedimentary processes.

And igneous rocks are layed down by volcanic processes. Since much of the rock down there is igneous, how do you explain that in a global flood?

Since these sedimentary layers are worldwide, are you guys suggesting not one worldwide flood, but hundreds of them?

Nope. Thousands of local floods. That is what the record shows.

Not to mention the same type of rock would have to be available over eons to be weathered and placed down in those vast beds if we assume vast periods of time.

Exactly. Areas were in the similar conditions for long periods of time, leaving formations that are very similar.

As a matter of fact whenever I debate a young earth interpretation, it is usually the evolutionist that scrambles to ignore the very science he claims to follow.

I have observed the opposite. Can you name one piece of evidence that evolutionists ignore?

I can name many things that young earthers ignore: Isochrons, varves, ice cores, etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you would have people believe that the same type of sediment was laid down for millions of years, then abruptly a different type was laid down for millions of years, etc, etc?

We certainly don't see that happening today with weathering. Instead a vast mixture is weathered and deposited in no discernible manner.

Do you have any actual evidence that the geological layers were lain down quickly apart from "Well I said so"?

 

[Jimmy D]

Can you show me infraspecific taxa within the species in the fossil record? Then it should be clear to you that the classifications are indeed a mistake else the fossil record would reflect the reality of the observational data of the world around us would it not?

I assert these:

Are clear examples of your mistaken classification of infraspecific taxa within the species as seperate species. That they are no different than these:

All merely different infraspecific taxa within the species.

Why are they mistakenly classified? Because you looked at a simplistic diagram showing reconstructions of their heads and said "they look similar"? I'm sorry but if you think your "observations" trump the opinion of paleontologists who have extensively studied these beasts you are deluded -by your logic these two critters would be variations of the same species:

But obviously they aren't.

I've said this to you before, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend the fact, that the taxonomic classification of has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution. The inter-relatedness of animals, either alive or in the fossil record is complicated, subtle and exactly what we would expect to see - it makes such classification fairly arbitary. Whether we call the ceratopsia in your picture different species makes not the slightest bit of difference to the overall picture, your objections are spurious.

He would have no choice but to agree. All observational data shows that Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Only when Husky mates with the Mastiff do we get variation (the Chinook) within the species. Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. Only when the Asian mates with an African do we get variation ( Afro-Asian) within the species.

LOL, He might agree that the lack of dinosaur fossils make classification difficult but for you to claim that he would support you weird ideas is ridiculous....

"we don’t argue about the fact of evolution. We can go back and forth indefinitely about the minutiae of paleobiology and the patterns of evolutionary change, but vertebrate paleontologists agree that evolution is a fact.

So what do dinosaurs have to do with the fact of evolution? Horner outlined five different proofs of evolution: three proofs that Darwin cited, a “test” proof, and what Horner called the ultimate proof. The first on the list was simply descent with modification. Horner cited the many strange breeds of dogs and chickens as an analog for how organisms can become drastically modified over the course of history. Humans specifically selected for those changes in the domesticated animals, but as Darwin illustrated in On the Origin of Species and other works, the changes that dogs, chickens and other animals have undergone underscores the fact that the same thing is happening due to entirely natural causes every second and every day. To greater or lesser extents, lineages of organisms change over time, and the fossil record demonstrates this beautifully.

Seeing as the topic seems to have veered toward geology in the thread maybe you should also have a read of this....

"In a phrasing that sounded appropriately Victorian, Horner then moved on to evolutionary proof from the “geological succession of organic beings.” Simply put, we find fossils in layers, in successions of strata that together span hundreds of millions of years. Fossils are not all together in one big clump (as would be expected if the entire fossil record were attributable to the biblical flood as many young earth creationists claim). You’re not going to find a prehistoric horse in the 150-million-year-old Jurassic limestone quarries of Germany, and you’re certainly not going to find a dinosaur in the 505-million-year-old rock of the Burgess Shale. But Horner said that he encourages creationists who want to believe in alternate histories to go looking for the out-of-place fossils they think they’re going to find. “I encourage people who don’t believe in evolution to look for horses in Jurassic Solenhofen limestone,” Horner said, especially since those searches may be much more useful in turning up new specimens of the feathered dinosaur and archaic bird Archaeopteryx."

SVP Dispatch: Dinosaurs and the Proofs of Evolution | Science | Smithsonian

It seems Horner is saying the opposite of what you "believe".

You and he both have never observed anything else. Now you can of course fantasize it happened differently in the past, everyone is entitled to freedom of belief. But T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. Triceratops remained Triceratops from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. This is true for every single fossil that exists. You have seen nothing different in the world around us or in the fossil record.

LOL. So all those ceratopsia in your diagram are separately "created" then?

 

[Jimmy D]

Do you have any actual evidence that the geological layers were lain down quickly apart from "Well I said so"?

He doesn't seem to understand the fact that people have actually spent years studying these things and that the evidence points to inescapable conclusions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Most of the biggest differences between mammals and reptiles are soft tissues. Heart, reproductive organs, lungs, brain, etc. Those thing rarely if ever show up in the fossil record.

If you read through this thread, you will see that we spent a lot of time talking about the one aspect of mammal and reptile anatomy that does fossilize well, the bones of the jaw and ear. And there we find exactly what evolution predicts. Early animals have the reptile jawbone, but none have the mammallian jaw. Then we see a long series of transitionals over many millions of years, with jawbones progressively more like mammals, until creatures finally appear with the two back bones of the reptile's jaw converted into bones of the inner ear of the mammal.

Wikipedia is wrong on this one. It is pretty good on history, not so good on biology and evolution. As with mammals and reptiles the biggest differences between birds and dinosaurs are with the soft tissues which generally do not fossilize.

Actually wikipedia is a strong source of information on biology (with the caveat that sometimes unqualified people post there). See, for instance, this exhaustive reference on Theropoda with multiple citations: Theropoda - Wikipedia .

 

[doubtingmerle]

He doesn't seem to understand the fact that people have actually spent years studying these things and that the evidence points to inescapable conclusions.

Exactly. Creationists are taught that evolution is based on imaginary fossils, bogus DNA claims, and dates pulled out of a hat to match the theory. If only they realized the extent of the research in many fields of study, they would see things very differently.

 

[xianghua]

If you read through this thread, you will see that we spent a lot of time talking about the one aspect of mammal and reptile anatomy that does fossilize well, the bones of the jaw and ear. And there we find exactly what evolution predicts.

evolution doesnt predict this. if we will find a reptile with a mammal jaw it will called "convergent evolution".

 

[Jimmy D]

evolution doesnt predict this. if we will find a reptile with a mammal jaw it will called "convergent evolution".

What reptile has a mammalian jaw?

 

[xianghua]

What reptile has a mammalian jaw?

im talking about theoretical situation. evolution doesnt predict that all reptiles should have a mammals jaw. some mammals have traits that are unique to reptiles for instance.

 

[Abraxos]

And that still doesn't support your claim that the sediments were lain down quickly, a claim which you have given no evidence for. So it's ironic that you would make a claim about a lack of explanation but then you do the exact same thing you blame others of doing.

We are both looking at the same evidence but we are interpreting it differently. Now which interpretation is consistent with the physical laws in reality and made testable through the sciences?

Lets look at the evidence through your lens and the problems with it:

You believe that the sediment layers represent ages.
As I pointed out before to which you still have not provided an adequate answer, was if these layers represent ages then why was one age just one particular kind of dirt? Does that mean that age only consisted of clay? Or Limestone? Or an age of coal? It doesn't make any logical sense.

The Grand Canyon picture you provided earlier, we know that limestone is made up of marine organisms, if these layers represented "ages" why is limestone an "age layer" throughout this picture? Why is there limestone on top? Was there numerous ages of floods big enough to cover the Grand Canyon? Even Shale is a sediment rock also known as mudstone, and to get mud you need water obviously. This picture is a clear evidence of hydrology. How is this evidence for slow and gradual vertical accumulation?

You also believe that these layers vertically accumulate with dirt gradually over time.
Here's another problem, how is this even possible? How do you explain the strata with uniformitarianism? Since when do strata form over long periods of time? How is long deposition create particle size distribution and clear distinct boundaries between one strata to another? Materials blend over time, it's called gradation. If uniformitarianism were true then the material would gradate into each other over time.

It is simply scientifically impossible for uniformitarianism to work on a worldwide scale, and even just a small area to vertically accumulate sediment is impossible because of gradation and the unpredictable weather patterns.

You also believe that the fossils in those layers determine those flora and fauna lived in that age.
And another problem is the fossils themselves. How do you slowly bury flora and fauna without it being scavenged or destroyed by the rigors of weathering? Even if you managed to bury it, burying it alone does not create a fossil. We have fossils with soft tissue, including hairs, feathers and stomach and intestine contents. We have millions of fossilized Jellyfish and fossilized raindrops. Why would I assume that fossils occurred slowly? This is evidence of rapid burial and rapid enclosure, sealed safe from oxidation, and other external forces that would destroy it.

If the flora and fauna can only be fossilized through rapid pressurized burials then the strata was deposited rapidly and layers formed through distribution of the particles coarse to fine.

Conclusion
A uniformitarian look at this makes no logical sense and is scientifically impossible. So when you ask for evidence for a flood, the evidence you actually see is evidence of hydrogeology. It can be scientifically verified and has been observed in real time with examples like Mount St Helens eruption; it's just on a much bigger scale of biblical proportions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We are both looking at the same evidence but we are interpreting it differently. Now which interpretation is consistent with the physical laws in reality and made testable through the sciences?

Lets look at the evidence through your lens and the problems with it:

You believe that the sediment layers represent ages.
As I pointed out before to which you still have not provided an adequate answer, was if these layers represent ages then why was one age just one particular kind of dirt? Does that mean that age only consisted of clay? Or Limestone? Or an age of coal? It doesn't make any logical sense.

The Grand Canyon picture you provided earlier, we know that limestone is made up of marine organisms, if these layers represented "ages" why is limestone an "age layer" throughout this picture? Why is there limestone on top? Was there numerous ages of floods big enough to cover the Grand Canyon? Even Shale is a sediment rock also known as mudstone, and to get mud you need water obviously. This picture is a clear evidence of hydrology. How is this evidence for slow and gradual vertical accumulation?

You also believe that these layers vertically accumulate with dirt gradually over time.
Here's another problem, how is this even possible? How do you explain the strata with uniformitarianism? Since when do strata form over long periods of time? How is long deposition create particle size distribution and clear distinct boundaries between one strata to another? Materials blend over time, it's called gradation. If uniformitarianism were true then the material would gradate into each other over time.

It is simply scientifically impossible for uniformitarianism to work on a worldwide scale, and even just a small area to vertically accumulate sediment is impossible because of gradation and the unpredictable weather patterns.

You also believe that the fossils in those layers determine those flora and fauna lived in that age.
And another problem is the fossils themselves. How do you slowly bury flora and fauna without it being scavenged or destroyed by the rigors of weathering? Even if you managed to bury it, burying it alone does not create a fossil. We have fossils with soft tissue, including hairs, feathers and stomach and intestine contents. We have millions of fossilized Jellyfish and fossilized raindrops. Why would I assume that fossils occurred slowly? This is evidence of rapid burial and rapid enclosure, sealed safe from oxidation, and other external forces that would destroy it.

If the flora and fauna can only be fossilized through rapid pressurized burials then the strata was deposited rapidly and layers formed through distribution of the particles coarse to fine.

Conclusion
A uniformitarian look at this makes no logical sense and is scientifically impossible. So when you ask for evidence for a flood, the evidence you actually see is evidence of hydrogeology. It can be scientifically verified and has been observed in real time with examples like Mount St Helens eruption; it's just on a much bigger scale of biblical proportions.

Okay, but here's the thing: you aren't following the evidence. You are looking at all of the science and when you see that it doesn't mesh with your religious viewpoint, you go "yeah, I'm not going to accept that. So I'm going to make something up that fits my views and I'll accept that instead. No matter how unscientific it is!"

Do you not realize how traumatic and destructive a global flood is? A global flood would leave so few soft bodied animals for fossilization, let alone leaving the bodies perfectly intact.
And your insipid reference to the Mount Saint Helens eruption, an activity that does not in anyway at all support your claim that all of the layers of the geological strata were laid down by a global flood.
And SO MANY of the questions you asked are basic things that you should have known from geography and science lessons in high school. Which, to be perfectly honest, just absolutely terrifies me about your lack of knowledge and your own perceived amount of knowledge.

 

[Abraxos]

Okay, but here's the thing: you aren't following the evidence. You are looking at all of the science and when you see that it doesn't mesh with your religious viewpoint, you go "yeah, I'm not going to accept that. So I'm going to make something up that fits my views and I'll accept that instead. No matter how unscientific it is!"

Do you not realize how traumatic and destructive a global flood is? A global flood would leave so few soft bodied animals for fossilization, let alone leaving the bodies perfectly intact.
And your insipid reference to the Mount Saint Helens eruption, an activity that does not in anyway at all support your claim that all of the layers of the geological strata were laid down by a global flood.

Before we throw around accusations whether I'm being tricky and sneaky or whatever, first provide me with some reasonable answers to my questions as I did take the time go into some detail on my reasoning's structured around science. If your position is true then it should be easy for you.

Take your time and be detailed in your answers. This is a scientific discussion after all. Hastiness is for fools. Proverbs 29:20.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Before we throw around accusations whether I'm being tricky and sneaky or whatever, first provide me with some reasonable answers to my questions as I did take the time go into some detail on my reasoning's structured around science. If your position is true then it should be easy for you.

Take your time and be detailed in your answers. This is a scientific discussion after all. Hastiness is for fools. Proverbs 29:20.

No, I won't answer your questions since the questions you asked can easily be looked up online.
The entire premise of your questions are based solely on the science you see not meshing with your religious views and you deciding that the science is irrelevant in light of your religious viewpoint.

 

[Abraxos]

No, I won't answer your questions since the questions you asked can easily be looked up online.
The entire premise of your questions are based solely on the science you see not meshing with your religious views and you deciding that the science is irrelevant in light of your religious viewpoint.

Well, put it into your own words to show at least you have a slight understanding of your own position as you seem quite lost on the subject and pretending you're upset. If the premise is wrong show me why it is wrong in your own words. Can you at least manage that?

What did I say about hastiness is for fools? Prove me wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, put it into your own words to show at least you have a slight understanding of your own position as you seem quite lost on the subject and pretending you're upset. If the premise is wrong show me why it is wrong in your own words. Can you at least manage that?

What did I say about hastiness is for fools? Prove me wrong.

The fact that you imply that because a geological layer was formed SOLELY from the material found in the geological layer (like the clay and limestone layers you mentioned) shows that you don't understand how those layers are formed, ESPECIALLY when it comes to coal.
To form coal, you need an extreme amount of pressure and heat acting on fallen trees in swampy and wet environments. When those trees fell and nature acted on the swamps and wetlands to dry them out, the trees became buried in mud, which then hardened and became compressed. This process continued as erosion and wind deposited more sediments on top of the fallen trees, further compressing the trees down. As the dead trees were buried deeper, so too were they exposed to more heat, protecting them from biodegredation and oxidation that would eat away at the trees, forming peat bogs, which eventually became coal.

And the only way to explain that process is by the gradual and long term deposition of sediment and earth. You CANNOT explain that away with either a young earth or by rapid deposition of sediment. Now prove ME wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Abraxos, I think you misunderstand uniformitarianism. It is not the belief that deposits always formed at the same slow rate. Rather, uniformatiarianism is the view that the processes that work today worked in the past to form the fossil record. Processes that work today include volcanoes, earthquakes, and floods.

We are both looking at the same evidence but we are interpreting it differently. Now which interpretationi is consistent with the physical laws in reality and made testable through the sciences?

How does a flood account for sand dunes buried deep beneath the earth?

How does a flood account for tracks and tunnels throughout the record far below the surface?

How does a flood account for thousands of years of annual layers of ice in the polar ice cap?

How does a flood account for the K-Pg boundary, a worldwide layer that was deposited about 65 million years ago?

How does a flood account that all classic dinos are in layers below the K-Pg boundary, and all modern mammals are found above it?

Your flood accounts for none of that, does it?

Lets look at the evidence through your lens and the problems with it:

You believe that the sediment layers represent ages.
As I pointed out before to which you still have not provided an adequate answer, was if these layers represent ages then why was one age just one particular kind of dirt? Does that mean that age only consisted of clay? Or Limestone? Or an age of coal? It doesn't make any logical sense.

The area that is now the Grand Canyon was once much lower than it is now. There are times when it was under the sea, times when it was marsh, and times above the sea. The different layers represent different states of the land at different times.

How do you account for all those layers? Floods would mix everything up.

The Grand Canyon picture you provided earlier, we know that limestone is made up of marine organisms, if these layers represented "ages" why is limestone an "age layer" throughout this picture?

Because the land was sometimes under water for thousands of years.

Even Shale is a sediment rock also known as mudstone, and to get mud you need water obviously. This picture is a clear evidence of hydrology. How is this evidence for slow and gradual vertical accumulation?

Uniformitarianism allows the rate to vary. Mudslides are one of the things that happens in today's world, and in the past.

You also believe that these layers vertically accumulate with dirt gradually over time.
Here's another problem, how is this even possible? How do you explain the strata with uniformitarianism? Since when do strata form over long periods of time? How is long deposition create particle size distribution and clear distinct boundaries between one strata to another?

If there was a global flood, we would see jumbled big boulders at the bottom, and progressively smaller rocks as we neared the top. (Stokes law). We find nothing like that on a global scale, only in local floods.

You also believe that the fossils in those layers determine those flora and fauna lived in that age.

Of course. Why do you think there is plenty of pollen in recent strata, but no signs of pollen in the early strata?

And another problem is the fossils themselves. How do you slowly bury flora and fauna without it being scavenged or destroyed by the rigors of weathering?

Local floods, local mudslides, etc.

 

[RickG]

But you, nor any of the thousands of geologists in the world, including our own @RickG, have found ANY evidence to support the claim that the geological layers were lain down quickly. You make the claim, so you present the evidence.

The concept that all sedimentary deposits were laid down hydrologically and quickly some 4500 years ago overlooks quite a bit of well studied and understood geological processes.

How sedimentary layers are laid down is an enormous scientific discipline of its own, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Describing it in a few sentences doesn't even begin to describe what all it entails. But just for a quick overview, understanding the various environments, and there are quite a few, in which different sedimentation processes take place is a good place to start. Let's look at sedimentary environment (process/cause) and sedimentary facies (response/effect), I'll just outline the major aspects that come into play.

SEDIMENTARY ENVIRONMENT:

• Dynamic Elements of the Environment:
• Physical Processes: wave & current activity; gravity oprocesses; sea level changes; tectonism & volcanism
• Biological Processes: biochemical precipitation; biologic reworking of sediment; photosynthesi

Static Element of the Environment:

• Geomophology of the depositional site
• Water depth
• Water chemistry
• Depositonal materials (sediment supply)
• Climate

SEDIMENTARY FACIES:

Geometry of the deposit:

• Blanket, prism, shoestring, etc.

Primary Sediment Properties:

• Physical: bedding and contact relationships; sedimentary textures and structures; color; particle composition
• Chemical: major element and trace element composition
• Biological: fossil content (type and abundance)

Derived sediment properties:

• Porosity and permeability
• Acoustical properties
• Resistivity
• Radioactivity

So, understanding the environments of the various types of sediments and their formation processes allows us to recognize and identify the numerous layers of sediment found world-wide.