The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[xianghua]

Really?

I can do things that my dog cant do. so by this logic we can say that I can walk on water and I created the earth in six days.

I don't agree with that logic.

I do stand by what I said, that since life can do things watches can't do, therefore the fact that watches can't evolve biologically does not prove life can't do it.

if so its also true that you can walk on water. again: this is your logic. not mine.

 

[xianghua]

This is like saying that because I can't prove that I'm descended from any particular person who lived at the time of Copernicus (1473-1543) there is no evidence that I had ancestors who lived in Copernicus's time.

not the same since we know that a human can evolve from human, but we dont know how a human can evolve from non human.

 

[doubtingmerle]

if so its also true that you can walk on water. again: this is your logic. not mine.

It's not my logic. You are only pretending it is mine.

 

[jamesbond007]

You know she isn't the only afarensis found right?

I'm going to need more then scoffing and conspiracy theories to convince me that paleontology is totally wrong.

Yes, and you know that none of them were complete.

>>S: I'm going to need more then scoffing and conspiracy theories to convince me that paleontology is totally wrong.<<

Let's continue to discuss, I'm going to give you a scientific rebuttal.

But, before that let's review about the evolution side. In terms of fossils, they committed several lies and deception. Sorry, this isn't a scientific looking infograph (and I may have posted already), but it's the only one I've found with all the information in one place. It's an illustration just like the one that is ubiquitous to convince people humans came from apes (and now chimpanzees).

Why do you think people in science would do such things? Of course, it's for their material gain. It was for money, prestige and new position that their findings would give them. With Piltdown Man, a whole generation of people around the world were fooled.

Now, fossils are found in several places over the world, but they aren't that plentiful. It makes you wonder why Lucy became so prominent instead of Ardipithecus which was more complete? It's because Lucy's fossils along with Mary Leakey's footprint (from Tanzania I think), and a few others scientists at that time found, could make an argument that this ape was bipedal and due to the African savannahs. Ardi couldn't be placed there because it lived in the forests.

So, while Lucy wasn't complete its finder was able to weave a tale of common ancestor that fits what they were looking for.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, and you know that none of them were complete.

>>S: I'm going to need more then scoffing and conspiracy theories to convince me that paleontology is totally wrong.<<

Let's continue to discuss, I'm going to give you a scientific rebuttal.

But, before that let's review about the evolution side. In terms of fossils, they committed several lies and deception. Sorry, this isn't a scientific looking infograph (and I may have posted already), but it's the only one I've found with all the information in one place. It's an illustration just like the one that is ubiquitous to convince people humans came from apes (and now chimpanzees).

Why do you think people in science would do such things? Of course, it's for their material gain. It was for money, prestige and new position that their findings would give them. With Piltdown Man, a whole generation of people around the world were fooled.

Now, fossils are found in several places over the world, but they aren't that plentiful. It makes you wonder why Lucy became so prominent instead of Ardipithecus which was more complete? It's because Lucy's fossils along with Mary Leakey's footprint (from Tanzania I think), and a few others scientists at that time found, could make an argument that this ape was bipedal and due to the African savannahs. Ardi couldn't be placed there because it lived in the forests.

So, while Lucy wasn't complete its finder was able to weave a tale of common ancestor that fits what they were looking for.

Are you really using a chick tract as a scientific reference?

That’s cheered me up thanks!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you really using a chick tract as a scientific reference?

That’s cheered me up thanks!

I wonder if he knows that he is using an image from a comic series written by a guy that thought Catholicism is of the devil and that Muslims worship the moon? Past tense because he's dead.

@jamesbond007 , never use Chick Tracts as a source of anything but cringe worthy reading material. They are notorious for blatant lies both about scientific disciplines and religious materials (the bible is not excluded from the latter).

 

[Astrophile]

It makes you wonder why Lucy became so prominent instead of Ardipithecus which was more complete?

Partly because Lucy was discovered in 1974 and D. Johanson and M.A. Edey wrote a book about her in 1981, whereas Ardipithecus wasn't discovered until 1994.

 

[Brightmoon]

Yes, and you know that none of them were complete.

>>S: I'm going to need more then scoffing and conspiracy theories to convince me that paleontology is totally wrong.<<

Let's continue to discuss, I'm going to give you a scientific rebuttal.

But, before that let's review about the evolution side. In terms of fossils, they committed several lies and deception. Sorry, this isn't a scientific looking infograph (and I may have posted already), but it's the only one I've found with all the information in one place. It's an illustration just like the one that is ubiquitous to convince people humans came from apes (and now chimpanzees).

Why do you think people in science would do such things? Of course, it's for their material gain. It was for money, prestige and new position that their findings would give them. With Piltdown Man, a whole generation of people around the world were fooled.

Now, fossils are found in several places over the world, but they aren't that plentiful. It makes you wonder why Lucy became so prominent instead of Ardipithecus which was more complete? It's because Lucy's fossils along with Mary Leakey's footprint (from Tanzania I think), and a few others scientists at that time found, could make an argument that this ape was bipedal and due to the African savannahs. Ardi couldn't be placed there because it lived in the forests.

So, while Lucy wasn't complete its finder was able to weave a tale of common ancestor that fits what they were looking for.

Whether or not a skeleton is complete is not that important to an anatomist. Just getting the bottom of the skull can tell you whether a primate species was bipedal or walked in all fours. A scapula with part of the shoulder girdle can tell you about treeswinging or not( monkeys can’t tree-swing . Apes treeswing )

 

[tas8831]

Yes, and you know that none of them were complete.

Can you explain why you think that is relevant?

 

[tas8831]

Yes, and you know that none of them were complete.

Can you explain why you think that is relevant?

 

[tas8831]

so far i seen no evidence...

So you have really just ignored this the last 10 times I posted it?


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."




The only replies I have ever gotten on this from creationists have been sad cop-outs asking if humans are related to mice, things like that.

 

[tas8831]

Her hip was re-built to make it more human and she didn't have feet either. Lucy should be removed from consideration since her fossils were found three miles apart. Professor C. Owen Lovejoy who reconstructed Lucy thinks apes evolved from humans.

I would really like to see the documentation for these claims. Because they sound like bullspit.

 

[tas8831]

This is a gorilla skull:

It looks nothing like the top row of skulls.

Maybe this is why you saw creation in anatomy - you didn't actually study it one bit.

I had forgotten about this laugh-riot of a dismissal of fossil evidence.

It seems that creationists with high IQs are not up to snuff on much...

 

[SkyWriting]

It is fact which has given Evolutions a black eye - out of billions of fossils inspected and documented there is not one single sequence/succession that shows Evolution by the fossil record.

All parents have children that are different, (change) with every generation.
You can have a batch of puppies and see the change in just a few months.

By screening for attitude changes you can change the physical
aspects of wolves in just a few generations.

 

[xianghua]

So you have really just ignored this the last 10 times I posted it?


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."




The only replies I have ever gotten on this from creationists have been sad cop-outs asking if humans are related to mice, things like that.

i will not read all of it. not even the abstracts. its just a regular phylogeny.

 

[Brightmoon]

Unbelievable!!!!! You’re acting like that priest who refused to look thru Galileo’s telescope . He was afraid of seeingGod . Or most likely afraid that the church was wrong

By the way you ARE wrong

 

[tas8831]

i will not read all of it. not even the abstracts. its just a regular phylogeny.

LOL!

So you can't handle (and thus ignore) the thing you claim is never presented - how typical.

Funny thing - you don't even need to read it all. The bolded phrases should be enough.

Are you smart enough to build a self-replicating robot penguin out of organic chemicals to prove evolution, or not?

 

[Brightmoon]

Lucy’s hipbones were crushed so they had to scan and rebuild it to its actual shape . So what was your point . That fossils don’t get squashed? They do . That’s why paleontologists use computers and laser scans .

“Lucy’s knee” ( note the quotes) was a broken upper shinbone articulating with a broken lower thigh bone that didn’t actually belong to Lucy as she had one thigh bone and the shinbone of the opposite leg. Think about that for a second . Where did the knee fit ? Unless Lucy had 3 legs . Creationists love to claim that “Lucy’s knee” was some distance from Lucy but it didn’t belong to her. Creationists never quite figured out that Australopithecus afarensis was a species not an individual

 

[Heissonear]

So you have really just ignored this the last 10 times I posted it?


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."




The only replies I have ever gotten on this from creationists have been sad cop-outs asking if humans are related to mice, things like that.

The interpreting of the numerous tests and computer simulations are based on conjecture.

Conjecture it is. A winding road many travel. But experimental proof of historic evolution is missing. It does not exist.

What does the fossil record show about the history of Creatures? Zero transition fossils.

So your lab tests are structured experiments based on conjecture. In the past world no evolution producing a tree of life exists. There are missing fossil gaps between every lineage presented.

Some are slow to apprehend the dilemma evolutionists are in.

Evolutionists really do not see the conclusion the historic fossil record presents. Zero transitional fossil sequences showing morphological changes into another Creature do not exist - zero. The fossil record instead shows Kinds, as the Bible states.

Modern laboratory tap dance experiments mean nothing. They are conjecture based - and not facing historical evidence.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Conjecture it is. A winding road many travel. But experimental proof of historic evolution is missing. It does not exist.

In science there are entire fields that utilize historical record coupled with workable mechanisms to understand how things happen.

Take geology for example! It is a field built on looking at solid rock and figuring out how it came to be folded or faulted or moved 3/4 of the way around the entire globe!

We find mechanisms that function or are suggested by bits of data and we extrapolate out to understand the larger topic.

In the case of evolution, for instance, we have a great "book" laid out before us of LIFE CHANGING OVER TIME! They are called FOSSILS.

And then in the modern time we see how DNA and GENETICS work! It all fits so nicely together.

What does the fossil record show about the history of Creatures? Zero transition fossils.

That is not how geologists and paleontologists see it. But you are free to differ with them. But you may wish to see how geologists and paleontologists view the data since they've been working with it a very long time.

Modern laboratory tap dance experiments mean nothing. They are conjecture based - and not facing historical evidence.

If one doesn't understand the science one might be tempted to discount it. But there are people who have invested entire careers into understanding how science works and who actually work in labs!