Job 33:6
Well-Known Member
- Jun 15, 2017
- 7,442
- 2,800
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Phylogenetic trees? Rather blades of grass! Blades representing each life form springing up abruptly at the same time, fully formed with no evolutionary history! "Anatomy may fluctuate over time, but the last remnants of a species usually look pretty much like the first representatives."
If the data infers that the sedimentary layers were laid down over millions of years then data is made up and the illustrations are meaningless! The evidence is that, except for igneous, they were laid down rapidly by running water sorting out sediments made up of their own unique and almost pure elements, and is why sediment layers look layered. So your illustrations of the layers are a record of a watery event that buried trillions of life forms not a fossil record of millions of years of evolution!
Other than the illustrations exactly where do they appear in the strata in that order? In fact fossils in sedimentary layers are overwhelmingly, 95%, comprised of marine life! The Grand Canyon said to expose one of the most complete sequences of rock anywhere, that can be traced right across North America, is said to have had marine environments creating many of the sedimentary rock layers where marine fossils are found throughout! The Claron Formation containing the Cenozoic Era at the top of the Grand Canyon, claimed to represent the last 66 million years, contain fossils of freshwater fish and an abundance of fossils of freshwater snails also plants and animals like bison all mixed together! Were animals like the bison slowly buried over hundreds or thousands of years?
The observable evidence of paleontology and genetics disproves the concept of phylogenetic trees! There is much evidence showing that living organisms appeared abruptly, fully formed at or about the same time with no evidence of ancestry!
Of course the fossils are there but your drawings show no evidence for Darwin's TOE! There is much evidence showing that living organisms appeared abruptly, fully formed at or about the same time!
You don't appear to understand the subject matter if you aren't aware of cladistics based phylogeny and faunal succession. Denial of cladistics isn't a sufficient response. Even if two animals hypothetically were not related, you could still construct phylogenetic trees based on comparative anatomy and morphology (ie two animals with fur such as a dog and cat would be cladistically more similar to eachother than to fish that don't have fur, and this too is observed in the fossil record where dogs and cats (or prehistoric wolves and sabertooth tigers for example) appear closer to one another than to fish in the fossil succession [based on timing of first appearance].) And it also is true that DNA of dogs and cats is more similar to eachother than either is to fish. So the fossil record=morphology=comparative anatomy=genetics.
This is what deniers of evolution have no response for.
Most people can understand this too. You don't have to have a PhD to understand that dogs and cats are more similar to eachother than they are to fish, and so it is the same in the fossil record where fish are present in the Cambrian, while dogs and cats appear closer together in the Cenozoic. And again, we don't even need to date the rocks they're in either, because it's true based on geologic superposition. Another concept that is so utterly grounded in reality that it cannot reasonably be denied.
So criticizing the existence of cladistics is really just an absurd response.
The rest of your post appears to be an attempt to avoid answering the question, mixed in with illogical denial. Also, there's nothing abnormal about finding land animal fossils near freshwater fossils in rocks derived from lacustrine environments (such as lakes or rivers where land animals and fish live side by side). Land animals and fish live together today (bears hunt fish for example), so it's no surprise that we find, in lacustrine rocks, land animals with fish. example: Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)
Denial just isn't a sufficient response.
I guess I'll just say it again, if you have an actual response, I'll be here. But I can't take you seriously if you don't understand the subject matter or are simply derailing the topic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0