The Demise of Evolution

[ZNP]

No, that was not the case. You do not seem to understand what that means. It only means that the same physical laws in existence today existed in the past. A large asteroid would be disastrous at any time. I think you are putting your own spin on this.

Enough already, you are completely unfamiliar with this debate, I get it.

Again, no. It has always meant that the physical laws were the same then as now. That is all. From that we can deduct what happened in the past.

It has been used numerous times in the last 50 years to reject theories and discoveries.

No one has claimed that scientists don't lie. Though getting caught in a lie can be career ending for a scientist so being honest is simply in their best interest. Creationists on the other hand seem to have no problem at all when their own "scientists" lie by distorting the facts.

Lastly you did not understand the study that you referred to. That dealt largely with medical studies if it is the one that I am thinking of. It appears that you are continuing to grasp at creationist straws.

First I am not a creationist, so I have no idea what the creationists straws are.

 

[ZNP]

Deep sea cores are only 200 million years old at the most. The majority are far younger. You do not understand rather basic geology. That is why you were confused by "Lazurus fossils".

So clear it up. First you say that we don't have deep sea marine fossils, now you say they only go back 200 million years. However, we have rocks that have been uplifted and we have foraminifera that have been dated over 500 million years old. So how did any of this illuminate the issue with lazarus taxa? Are you wasting our time? You tell me that I am confused on it, so why not explain it to us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Enough already, you are completely unfamiliar with this debate, I get it.

The projection is strong with this one.

It has been used numerous times in the last 50 years to reject theories and discoveries.

Yes, but for the reasons that I said. Not because "well that does not happen today".

First I am not a creationist, so I have no idea what the creationists straws are.

Your arguments tend to be rather similar to those of creationists. Misinterpretation of science to support some unscientific belief is the norm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So clear it up. First you say that we don't have deep sea marine fossils, now you say they only go back 200 million years. However, we have rocks that have been uplifted and we have foraminifera that have been dated over 500 million years old. So how did any of this illuminate the issue with lazarus taxa? Are you wasting our time? You tell me that I am confused on it, so why not explain it to us?

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

You also do not have an understanding of very basic geology. The fossils that we observe are all on continental crust. The deposits were made in relatively shallow marine environments. Not deep ocean. Oceanic crust is constantly recycled and the oldest is about 200 million years old. Therefore the record of deep sea oceanic life, even if one has fossils, is very limited.

 

[Ophiolite]

You continually demonstrate a quite strong ignorance of geology. The marine fossils that we have are all actually all continental fossils from when the continents were lower and the sea were higher (the icecaps are geologically recent). Deep sea life does not leave a fossil record. You should be able to figure out why.

On a personal level I really hate doing this, since I enjoy and generally agree with your posts, however, you are incorrect. There are plenty of examples of fossiliferous, deep-sea sediments scraped off of descending plates at continental margins, or the upper levels of ophiolite sequences, obducted onto other continents. Just think on graptolites and black shales for example.
I'm not really sure where ZNO is heading, but sense I may have a fundamental difference with them. Therefore, it behoves me to be as precise and accurate as possible in these discussions, so I couldn't let this one from you pass.

 

[ZNP]

Your arguments tend to be rather similar to those of creationists. Misinterpretation of science to support some unscientific belief is the norm.

Thank you for the constructive criticism. What is the Misinterpretation of science that I made which you are referring to and what is the unscientific belief that I have tried to support. Please refer me to my posts for my own benefit. Thanks

 

[Ophiolite]

No, that was not the case. You do not seem to understand what that means. It only means that the same physical laws in existence today existed in the past. A large asteroid would be disastrous at any time. I think you are putting your own spin on this.

Again, no. It has always meant that the physical laws were the same then as now. That is all. From that we can deduct what happened in the past.

It seems to be one of those days.
In my direct experience "The Present is the Key to the Past" did not simply refer to constancy of physical laws, but constancy of the expression of those physical laws. Bombardment was off the table. The extinction events were seen as gradual affairs. Most were not even recognised.


On the subject of deep sea fossils I omitted the more obvious instances. I can only put that down to thinking after midnight. Here is an example. I draw your attention to the last paragraph.

Grimes and Crossley A diverse ichnofauna from silurian flysch of the aberystwyth grits formation, Wales Geological Journal Vol26 1991
Abstract:
The most extensive ichnofauna yet recorded from a deep water Lower Palaeozoic sequence occurs within the distal turbidites of the Lower Silurian Aberystwyth Grits Formation of Central Wales.

The strata contain an abundant assemblage comprising 25 ichnogenera: Asteriacites, Bergaueria, Chondrites, Cochlichnus, Cosmorhaphe, Glockerichnus, Gordia, Helicolithus, Helminthopsis, Helminthoida, Hormosiroidea, Lorenzinia, Megagrapton, Monomorphichnus, Neonereites, Nereites, Palaeophycus, Paleodictyon, Planolites, Protopaleodictyon, Spirorhaphe, Spirophycus, Squamodictyon, Subphyllochorda, Taphrhelminthopsis; 36 ichnospecies are described, three of which (Asteriacites aberensis, Helminthopsis regularis, Cosmorhaphe elongata) are new.

The inorganic sedimentary structures and trace fossils of some 418 sandstone beds were examined in detail; 16 per cent of the beds commence with Divisions A or B and 84 per cent with Division C of the turbidite sequence. This indicates a relatively distal environment, mainly receiving low velocity turbidity currents, and favouring trace fossil preservation. The most common traces were Helminthopsis, Paleodictyon, and Squamodictyon which were found on 46 per cent, 34 per cent, and 19 per cent of the beds examined.

Data from this, and other recently described sequences, confirms that there was a gradual increase in trace fossil diversity in the deep oceans throughout the Lower Palaeozoic, in contrast to the situation in shallow water shelf seas where a peak was reached as early as the Lower Cambrian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On a personal level I really hate doing this, since I enjoy and generally agree with your posts, however, you are incorrect. There are plenty of examples of fossiliferous, deep-sea sediments scraped off of descending plates at continental margins, or the upper levels of ophiolite sequences, obducted onto other continents. Just think on graptolites and black shales for example.
I'm not really sure where ZNO is heading, but sense I may have a fundamental difference with them. Therefore, it behoves me to be as precise and accurate as possible in these discussions, so I couldn't let this one from you pass.

That is true. They are relatively rare, but it is a big world and exceptions will be found.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't have an explanation, however, I feel it might be tied to the DNA that we have since discovered lurks in our genome that has been turned off, just like converting a chicken into what appears to be a dinosaur. My point in raising this is that there is a whole lot to evolution that we don't know and if you are pushing the theory you should be interested in figuring it out.

Maybe we already have an answer to your question but for unclear reasons it's just not good enough for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

That does not make any sense at all. I was talking about Lazarus taxa, this is something that we discovered now that the fossil record is very accurate with geologists all over the world collecting fossils. Why would your explanation refer to a time when the fossil record was not studied?

The response is applicable because paleontologists realistically have only found fossils for less than a single percent of all life that has ever lived.

As the example goes, there once was a time where we didn't have the countless number of transitional fossils that we now do. But people didn't assume that species were extinct and magically just re-appeared.

We know that the absence of fossils does not mandate the absence of life. It is really that simple.

 

[ZNP]

Maybe we already have an answer to your question but for unclear reasons it's just not good enough for you.

Well I do have a few questions about evolution. I am not questioning the basic theory, only specifics. Lazarus Taxa is an example of one of those specifics I don't understand. I get your explanation, we thought they were extinct but in reality a small number survived and we just didn't see them in the fossil record. However, that in turn suggests we are overstating the severity of the Permian extinction. But saying there is missing evidence is not evidence, only a theory.
My bigger questions have to do with the evolution of Man which I consider to be unique among all the creatures. I do not understand how our ability to read and write fits in with the theory of evolution. From what I have read we sacrificed a photographic memory for this ability. Apparently chimpanzees and other primates have a photographic memory which helps them find food, a very valuable trait for a hunter gatherer. So we lost a very valuable trait for a trait that seems useless. Why would being able to read be helpful to us when there weren't any books? Why would being able to write be useful to us when there isn't anyone who can read? To make things worse our brain is a very expensive organ compared to brains of any other mammal. So we need a lot more food to power a brain that does not appear to be more useful to hunter gatherers 200,000 years ago.
Then I have some minor questions. If we are descended from apes why are we essentially hairless? Where did our fur go? The only mammals that are hairless are in the water (like a porpoise, or in the ground like a naked mole).

 

[Job 33:6]

Wow, I need to talk to my professors in graduate school, they had me study books with the 4,000 species we have identified which have lived over the last 540 million years. You do realize that we can study rock formations from the deep sea either from well cores, or as a result of uplift. I guess what threw me off is your signature with a reference to plate tectonics, figured you would know that.

To add to subduction zones response, nobody is pulling up ceolacanths with well cores either.

 

[ZNP]

To add to subduction zones response, nobody is pulling up ceolacanths with well cores either.

I worked in West Texas and we found that foraminifera was one of the best ways to date the rocks. They are abundant, you can usually find a variety of different ones and that can help narrow down the date even more. I don't understand the reference to ceolacanths. It seems a lot easier to deal with microscopic shells.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well I do have a few questions about evolution. I am not questioning the basic theory, only specifics. Lazarus Taxa is an example of one of those specifics I don't understand. I get your explanation, we thought they were extinct but in reality a small number survived and we just didn't see them in the fossil record. However, that in turn suggests we are overstating the severity of the Permian extinction. But saying there is missing evidence is not evidence, only a theory.
My bigger questions have to do with the evolution of Man which I consider to be unique among all the creatures. I do not understand how our ability to read and write fits in with the theory of evolution. From what I have read we sacrificed a photographic memory for this ability. Apparently chimpanzees and other primates have a photographic memory which helps them find food, a very valuable trait for a hunter gatherer. So we lost a very valuable trait for a trait that seems useless. Why would being able to read be helpful to us when there weren't any books? Why would being able to write be useful to us when there isn't anyone who can read? To make things worse our brain is a very expensive organ compared to brains of any other mammal. So we need a lot more food to power a brain that does not appear to be more useful to hunter gatherers 200,000 years ago.
Then I have some minor questions. If we are descended from apes why are we essentially hairless? Where did our fur go? The only mammals that are hairless are in the water (like a porpoise, or in the ground like a naked mole).

" I get your explanation, we thought they were extinct but in reality a small number survived and we just didn't see them in the fossil record. "

This^ is really all there is to it. No need to over complicate a rather simple concept.

And it's not a matter of over stating a mass extinction. If we never uncover evidence for their survival, we feasible conclude that they went extinct.

It's true that people thought some genus such as ceolacanths went extinct. We discovered living species and overturned that belief. But nobody is going around assuming that ceolacanths simply materialized in the oceans after long being extinct. Rather the most logical conclusion is that we simply don't have their fossils. Why don't we have their fossils? Well, in some cases the environment inhibits fossilization. In some cases their populations may be low. In some cases we just haven't looked in the right strata. Etc.

New species and new fossils are found every year. Species we've never seen before. The absence of fossils has never meant the absence of life. It's just that simple.

 

[Job 33:6]

@ZNP

And if your true inner concerns are about human evolution. Then talk about human evolution. Don't let your feelings trickle into unrelated topics such as with Lazarus fossils. If it's a philosophical concern that you have, then discuss philosophy.

 

[Job 33:6]

I worked in West Texas and we found that foraminifera was one of the best ways to date the rocks. They are abundant, you can usually find a variety of different ones and that can help narrow down the date even more. I don't understand the reference to ceolacanths. It seems a lot easier to deal with microscopic shells.

But did you find ceolacanths?

No of course not.

The reference to ceolacanths comes from them being commonly discussed Lazarus fossils.

 

[ZNP]

" I get your explanation, we thought they were extinct but in reality a small number survived and we just didn't see them in the fossil record. "

This^ is really all there is too it. No need to over complicate a rather simple concept.

And it's not a matter of over stating a mass extinction. If we never uncover evidence for their survival, we feasible conclude that they went extinct.

It's true that people thought some genus such as ceolacanths went extinct. We discovered living species and overturned that belief. But nobody is going around assuming that ceolacanths simple materialized in the oceans after long being extinct. Rather the most logical conclusion is that we simply don't have their fossils. Why don't we have their fossils? Well, in some cases the environment inhibits fossilization. In some cases their populations may be low. In some cases we just haven't looked in the right strata.

New species and new fossils are found every year. Species we've never seen before. The absence of fossils has never meant the absence of life. It's just that simple.

This is why I keep referring to Foraminifera and not other creatures that might be much more difficult to find. These things float in the ocean, when they die they sink to the bottom, settle in the mud and are well preserved. Not only so, but worldwide they are used to date the rocks, so geologists, particularly oil geologists are looking at the rocks, particularly well cores from all over the world. Careful records are kept so that we can put as accurate a date on each one, so for them to disappear from tens of millions of years of rock record and then reappear is quite stunning.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is why I keep referring to Foraminifera and not other creatures that might be much more difficult to find. These things float in the ocean, when they die they sink to the bottom, settle in the mud and are well preserved. Not only so, but worldwide they are used to date the rocks, so geologists, particularly oil geologists are looking at the rocks, particularly well cores from all over the world. Careful records are kept so that we can put as accurate a date on each one, so for them to disappear from tens of millions of years of rock record and then reappear is quite stunning.

Would you care to state the name of the species you're referring to? Since ceolacanths are an unacceptable example of lazarus taxa.

 

[Job 33:6]

@ZNP

Also, if a genera is re-discovered to exist in a later period, then they wouldn't be considered index fossils and wouldn't be used to date rocks. If you have an example of geologists using Lazarus taxa that span tens of millions of years to date rocks, feel free to present. Otherwise I'd reject the claim.

Of course, if a species disappears from the fossil record, then you can't make an argument for why it couldn't be used to date rocks.

 

[ZNP]

Would you care to state the name of the species you're referring to? Since ceolacanths are an unacceptable example of lazarus taxa.

Loftusia persica