The fossil record explained

[tas8831]

You are indicating that you don't care to entertain questions that naturally arise from your OP. Not surprising as most evolutionists duck those questions.

You know what questions creationists ALWAYS duck? Questions asking for actual evidence of creation.

My favorite question for evolutionists is what all must happen for this or that change to take place? In detail please. Naturally occurring biological changes observed today may be used to explain these evolutionary changes that occurred millions of years ago.

You unwittingly answered your own question and don't even know it.

 

[tas8831]

Here's a simple diagram to show you what I mean by evolutionary details.

Code:

C = Change (large)
. = Small changes needed to complete large change.

We can't begin with a "C" because "C" requires many "." first. So a simple 'equation', if you will, would look like this,

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................C

Each "." must be successful, and in the proper order, in order for "C" to take place.

Science asserts "C" but is silent about how these "." occur. Perhaps you can help.

Perhaps instead of PRETENDING to understand evolution and how it works (as is clear from what you just wrote), you could actually go to one of the resources that several have supplied for you over the past many months and actually learn a bit about it?

Creationists are, frankly, spectacularly ignorant of these sorts of things, yet insist they are not.
We have one guy blabbering on about continuous variation without knowing what it is. We have another claiming the RNL is perfect the way it is because gut feelings.

Now we have you, yet again, displaying abject ignorance of the genotype-phenotype-selection trilogy.

Mutations (which, as I have explained more than once, do NOT have a particular 1-1 sort of effect as so many creationists need to think) alter phenotype, that alteration may then be acted upon by selection.
Also, as so many creationists do not seem to understand, not all mutations affect morphology, yet can still produce selectable traits.

So to answer your question - it is a stupid question based on ignorance. Small changes might be enough. Small changes can add up to big changes. If you want a grown-up, detailed explanation, ask a grown up question. But your track record shows that upon receiving detailed explanations, you can't understand most of it, so you ignore them and focus on some minor tidbit where you think you can score a cheap rhetorical point. Which, in the end, you usually fail at also.

 

[tas8831]

So just because you don't understand something, that makes it untrue or invalid? Is that how things work?

For him, yes it is. Up until someone whined like a beta to the moderators about it, my signature had a quote from OWG in which he declared that he disbelieved evolution because he couldn't understand it. He has also claimed to have a 135 IQ. So obviously. if such a super smart egomaniac cannot understand evolution, it must not be true and thus the ramblings of middle eastern numerologists from 2000 years ago are totally correct! ISN'T IT OBVIOUS???

That you arbitrarily dismiss that which is being studied is your problem.

And a recurring one, at that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As it fascinates me how every evolutionist on this forum has their own theory of how things evolved.... You can't even give me a scientific definition of species that you all agree on, then want to discuss speciation and which animals are separate species, lol, just hilarious. I'll respond when I stop laughing.....

Not that you'll actually stick with any scientific definition you do give after you give it....

True, there are fierce arguments going on constantly between scientists concerning how stuff 'evolved'. However when facing opposition from outside they present a united front in defense of evolution generally.

 

[tas8831]

What transitional forms?

Fossils that every single one remain the same across millions of years with not the slightest change? New forms appearing suddenly, just as we observe with dogs?

So I agree the observations show Kind after Kind (just as all dogs are the same species) and that evolutionists simply incorrectly call the new variation a new species.... for no other reason that it looks a little different, like a wolf and a poodle.

But then I am not the one that relies on "missing" common ancestors that can't be found for any single tree in an attempt to link what are in reality separate species......

I understand that if all evolutionists had were a few fragments of dog bones and had never seen them in real life, they would classify them as separate species and think one evolved into another. Incorrect, but understandable.

But of course an evolutionists would never consider actual real life when contemplating their fantasies of how life evolved in the past. Realizing all those they call separate species are merely variations of the same species, and that where they have to insert "missing" common ancestors in a false attempt to link actual separate creatures, is where the division between species actually lies....

Curious as to why you stopped referring to that newspaper article in which you claimed justification for your 'its all hybrids' mantra? The one that blew out the YEC timeline? The one that actually mentioned other groups of dogs (your article was focused on English dogs and you didn't seem to realize that)? LOL!

 

[DogmaHunter]

What you are describing is changes to scientific theories/hypotheses/etc. based on the gathering of new information. That's how science works; it formulates conclusions based on the best information available at the time. The idea is that over time, it gets ever closer to a more accurate description of the universe in which we live.

Didn't you get the memo???
Actually making progress and learning new things, is bad mmkay!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps instead of PRETENDING to understand evolution and how it works (as is clear from what you just wrote), you could actually go to one of the resources that several have supplied for you over the past many months and actually learn a bit about it?

Creationists are, frankly, spectacularly ignorant of these sorts of things, yet insist they are not.
We have one guy blabbering on about continuous variation without knowing what it is. We have another claiming the RNL is perfect the way it is because gut feelings.

Now we have you, yet again, displaying abject ignorance of the genotype-phenotype-selection trilogy.

Mutations (which, as I have explained more than once, do NOT have a particular 1-1 sort of effect as so many creationists need to think) alter phenotype, that alteration may then be acted upon by selection.
Also, as so many creationists do not seem to understand, not all mutations affect morphology, yet can still produce selectable traits.

So to answer your question - it is a stupid question based on ignorance. Small changes might be enough. Small changes can add up to big changes. If you want a grown-up, detailed explanation, ask a grown up question. But your track record shows that upon receiving detailed explanations, you can't understand most of it, so you ignore them and focus on some minor tidbit where you think you can score a cheap rhetorical point. Which, in the end, you usually fail at also.

Only the cloistered few 'understand' evolution. Most just blindly accept it as true because some pompous scientist in an intimidating white smock said so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

True, there are fierce arguments going on constantly between scientists concerning how stuff 'evolved'. However when facing opposition from outside they present a united front in defense of evolution generally.

Which is comparable with 2 forensics investigators disagree on how a murder was committed, while both are in agreement that a murder actually was committed.

There's a dead body with a bullet hole in the head and a gun with fingerprints that aren't of the dead person. They disagree on the exact flow of events that lead upto the murder. But there's no doubt a murder took place.

Your fallacy is that because there is disagreement about details, there must be disagreement about the whole thing.

Obvious nonsense. Obvious dishonesty.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'd expect so. Creationist demographics tend to be older. It's partially why creationism is on the decline.



What you are describing is changes to scientific theories/hypotheses/etc. based on the gathering of new information. That's how science works; it formulates conclusions based on the best information available at the time. The idea is that over time, it gets ever closer to a more accurate description of the universe in which we live.

Creationists however are starting with radically different ideas and have no way to distinguish them. If there was still ongoing debate over the age of the universe (say 100 million years versus 13 billion years) you might have a point. But is there still that level of debate in science? No.

Meanwhile creationists can't seem to agree on something like the age of the Earth. How how old is the Earth? Is it only 6000 years? 4.5 billion? Something in between? Why can't creationists come to an agreement? You still haven't answered this...

Is there a litmus test here? How is it possible for anyone to agree on the age of the earth. One can only accept the latest opinion of the 'experts', and even then there will be doubts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is comparable with 2 forensics investigators disagree on how a murder was committed, while both are in agreement that a murder actually was committed.

There's a dead body with a bullet hole in the head and a gun with fingerprints that aren't of the dead person. They disagree on the exact flow of events that lead upto the murder. But there's no doubt a murder took place.

Your fallacy is that because there is disagreement about details, there must be disagreement about the whole thing.

Obvious nonsense. Obvious dishonesty.

Perhaps you should read my post....clear to the end.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

ou know what questions creationists ALWAYS duck? Questions asking for actual evidence of creation.

The creation is the evidence for creation.

You unwittingly answered your own question and don't even know it.

I limited allowable changes to those that occur naturally, not in the fantasy of some scientist.

 

[tas8831]

If you understood how sediments settle out of water, perhaps you could understand how different massed animals could settle out of water just like the strata do......

Right... Like Henry Morris, YEC racist, claimed via his TAB assertion?

So if the world was covered in water thousands of feet deep (ala bible tales), and animals sort out via their density and drag coefficient and such, then where are the modern rhino fossils alongside ceratopsians?

Except sedimentary layers do not take millions of years to form:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-turn-sand-to-stone

"The treatment alters the consistency of sand, doing anything from solidifying it slightly to changing it into a substance as hard as marble. It blends a calcium solution, bacteria and other inexpensive compounds, forcing the bacteria to form carbonate precipitates with the calcium. This creates calcium carbonate, also called calcite, identical to limestone."

So, you are implying that scientists were around millennia ago making sedimentary layers in an instant? I mean, you DID notice that the story was about man-made sedimentary rock, right?
Or is this just the latest product of your ruch-to-do-keyword-searcvhes-to-try-to-save-face-and-failing, as in your dogs are all recent hybrids farce?

Except oil does not take millions of years to form either:

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029

"Engineers have created a continuous chemical process that produces useful crude oil minutes after they pour in harvested algae"

Are you saying that this is how oil is and has always been made, even before we even knew what petroleum was?

Do you EVER stop and think about whether or not your desperation-induced keyword searching has merit and is relevant?

 

[tas8831]

I didn't make the picture, we can include all the dog forms..... that's fine by me, it will just show your ideas of transitional forms are even more in error..... and are not in reality separate species.....

You do realize (or actually, you do not) that your current line of argumentation makes it much, much more difficult to take the creation myth seriously?
For this sort of hard-to-determine variation indicating that they are variations of a single species means that all apes, for example, are just one species - where to draw the line?
Will it be the usual arbitrary 'yes all apes are related via microevolution but humans are totally different somehow!' line?

View attachment 239122

Let's include all you like, it will just show the variation capable within a single species.....

Yes, well as one that understands anatomy and has taught this stuff at the college level for many years, just looking at the skulls presented I see a great deal of morphological unity and perhaps with the exception of some gross little inbred mutants like pugs, I would not consider them as separate species at all for even without a detailed analysis, I can see the shared characters in all of them. Can't you?

In addition to being self-defeating and naive, this line of argumentation is a great example of the creationist tendency to believe that everybody is as under-informed on these issues as you are (and this goes for the 'professional' creationists as well).

 

[tas8831]

The creation is the evidence for creation.

LOL!

You have still not bothered to learn that the fallacy of Begging the Question is NOT actually evidence, have you?

So much for that high IQ...

I limited allowable changes to those that occur naturally, not in the fantasy of some scientist.

Who are you to "allow" any such thing, when it is obvious that you seem to think a mutation in a genome can only = a tiny change in phenotype?

 

[tas8831]

Morphological change over time like a wolf to a poodle? Yet you have no problem understanding a wolf is the same species as a poodle, just variation in the species. So why do you suddenly find it hard to comprehend with everything else????

Wolf - to - poodle occurred via human intervention in what span of time again? Do we find wolf and poodle fossils in contemporaneous strata (if there were such fossils)?

You keep ignoring/not knowing about the fact that in terms of the fossil progression in the record, the transitionals are contained in strata separated by long spans of time.

That an early horse may have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

This is the Caroline Crocker gambit - she told students that modern horses and Eohippus were found in the same stratum. That is, she lied. What is your excuse?

That an early man might have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

So you are contradicting Genesis? Cool!

 

[xianghua]

I don't exactly understand what you mean with "changed into another". If you meant that we have ancestral species A being the precise ancestor of cetaceans, then reread my OP and starting posts because it's irrelevant. So please first explain what you mean with "one changing into the other".

Even when the vestigial leg were a former flipper, the pelvis it's attached to is still disconnected from the spinal cord which means that a former, functional structure became obsolete. Which spells evolution. It's still vestigial. But within the total framework I presented in my OP and initial posts, assuming it must have been a vestigial flipper is almost canceled out. Cetaceans are artiodactyls. Their anatomy says so. When there weren't cetaceans around, we already had many artiodactyls. In those days all artiodactyls were land animals. We have the fossil record showing the gradual change form land artiodactyls to cetaceans (Dorudon is by far not the only specimens or species of early cetaceans in the fossil record sequence).

so basically your main evidence is the fossil sequence. right? but remember that we can also able to arrange designed things in hierarchical sequence. but it doesnt prove any evolution. so why do you think that its true for living creatures?

 

[tas8831]

I'd like to know how we got here from the supposed 'simple' organisms that sprang into existence out of the blue.

I'd like to know how we got here from the supposed 'dust of the ground' that produced a fully-formed adult human male in an instant. I mean with evidence and an actual explanation, not hiding behind ancient numerologist/superstitious tales of magic.

 

[pitabread]

but remember that we can also able to arrange designed things in hierarchical sequence.

Not the same thing. Especially since fossil sequence is based on age. This has already been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[tas8831]

What is also curious is why did some species die out just because small changes occurred in the next generation. Were they suddenly 'unfit' for survival?

Gee, golly, I don't know - could it be maybe that some 'small changes' (don't you know what words to use?) are bad? Or could it be that the environment changed and made previously fit creatures less fit? I thought you pretended to understand evolution, yet with nearly every post you make, you show that this is not the case.

Also the complete lack of intermediate (not transitional) species is revealing. The fossil records shows quantum leaps in physical changes, not small incremental changes that one would expect.

Why would one expect that?

There has been a great deal of explanation and discussion re: the nature of fossilization and the nature of the fossil record in this thread and many others in which you have taken part. Feigning ignorance to help justify your anti-reality beliefs really is just sad at this point.

As a demonstration of your ignorance of the genotype-phenotype relationship, allow me to mention yet again an example of how 'tiny changes' in the genome can produce 'quantum leaps' in morphological change -
Mutations in fibroblast growth-factor receptor 3 in sporadic cases of achondroplasia occur exclusively on the paternally derived chromosome.
"More than 97% of achondroplasia cases are caused by one of two mutations (G1138A and G1138C) in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) gene, which results in a specific amino acid substitution, G380R."*

And what is achondroplasia? Dwarfism. A SINGLE point mutation in one gene for a growth factor receptor produces disproportionate limb growth, loss of interphalangeal joints, reduction in the length of the nasal bones, etc.

So please stop with your 'questions' and assertions that rely on your near total lack of knowledge regarding genetics as it relates to evolution. Or don't. Either way, you help out the side of science and reality.


*Note that I am not presenting this as an example of evolution or anything similar - I am presenting this as an example of the sometimes counter-intuitive nature of genetics and the relationship between genotype and phenotype.

 

[tas8831]

No it doesn't. It works by majority vote in the good ole boys club...

You are thinking about the Council of Nicaea...