James Tour demolishes secular claims of solving the origin of life

RTP76 · Nov 7, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
I saw this mentioned and figured I'd respond.

Again, a bird doesn't need to evolve all of these features simultaneously. The bird doesn't need to think "oh I need feathers and hollow bones in order to use my wings to fly!" Then evolves all the millions of features all at once.

CC: @Aussie Pete

Agreed (in that I understand evolution doesn't suggest multiple changes to happen all at once); however, this gets into that really gray area for which there is no data-substantiated research and much is still based upon conjecture (the 'story-telling' Dr. Tour refers to).

With so little data, the arguments for and against will largely be based upon conjecture.

So the suggestion is that there were reptiles, with feathers (keeping in mind other reptiles without feathers were already flying), and they are jumping around in the air trying to get something to eat (though many sources of food would have been accessible on the ground, as it still is today the early bird gets the worm), then there would have been the development of a 'proto-wing' that would have eventually allowed for stable gliding, then bones would have hollowed themselves out and thus flight.

But the story for birds doesn't stop there...

We must also envisage changes to their their reproduction system, lungs, how their unique sound production developed, how their migration patterns and sense of direction would have evolved, then we must imagine how these delicate creatures would have survived the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, and so on. This is like the metaphor where we can observe that evolution can demonstrably crawl 1 ft., (varying species of Darwin's 'finches of the Galapagos), but the conservative needs to data-backed empirical evidence that evolution will crawl-->walk-->run-->fly the remaining 5,279 ft to validate the claims of universal common descent.

Now I'm not looking to dive into a discussion on birds (I'm not particularly interested in birds), but just illustrating for the thread: none of this 'story' represents conclusions formed from data-substantiated research of the claimed mechanisms driving the changes, and no amount of conclusions inferred from cladistics and phylogenetics will substitute for actual data-substantiated findings (though I understand that the philosophy of thought behind what is accepted within evolutionary biology qualifies "evidence" without having to directly observe all 5,280 ft. being observed--I get that). For me, a scientist saying, "look there are genes and regions of DNA present over here and if we just copy/delete and/or do a bunch of flipping around (in a computer program algorithm) then we can come up how life [A] branched off into and [C] and therefore it must have happened that way", is insufficient as data-substantiated evidence... but that's me (some would agree, others disagree).

That said, more biologists today are saying that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to account for the complexity and diversity of life (classic Darwinian evolution), and projects like ENCODE and the discovery of orphan genes is giving more indication for uncommonness--Tour touches on this in his lectures. Because of my own way of thinking and my views of God and His word, my bias leads me to believe the research will continue to show that all life has a common creator and all life has an ancestor, but not all life arose from the same shared universal common ancestor (or God would not have revealed differently in His word).

I wonder if much of the evolution/creation debate stems from where we, as individuals, have different levels of 'acceptance' based upon our own experiences and personal biases. It would seem if there should ever be an answer that is found, that it will continue to require both 'conservative-' and 'liberal-' minded folks working together. While I don't agree with evolution from a universal common ancestor, I do appreciate you sharing your view and reasons supporting why you believe.

Job 33:6 · Nov 7, 2019

"We must envisage changes to their their reproduction system, lungs, how their unique sound production developed, how their migration patterns and sense of direction would have evolved, then we must imagine how these delicate creatures would have survived the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, and so on. "

This is good. Even these features, and research on these features, further support evolution.

And I'll give an example, actually I'll give two, no three examples. Because there actually is research and data on each of these.

But first, I should ask, what is acceptable data, if corroboration of phylogeny and genetics are not?

If you have reptile fossils, then reptiles that look like birds, then bird fossils, and you simultaneously have genes in chickens that you can switch on to give them reptilian teeth, and you further see that DNA based phylogenetic trees identically match the fossil succession...what else would someone need to see?

Would you need a time machine to believe it were true? Or is there something that you could physically see that would convince you? @RTP76

Job 33:6 · Nov 7, 2019

@RTP76

One thing you mentioned was "unique sound production".

Deniers of evolution used to argue that reptiles could not be ancestors of mammals because mammals had numerous inner ear bones, while reptiles had fewer ear bones, and mammals had fewer jaw bones, while reptiles had greater. How could something evolve better hearing if they lost their jawbone and could not eat in order to do it?

I'm sure you know what comes next:

Transitional fossils demonstrating the evolution of advanced forms of hearing in mammals with use of slow and gradual mutations which changed reptilian jaw bones into human ear bones. This giving mankind more sensitive hearing.

They were eventually discovered and the case was closed.

Yes, it may sound complicated. The idea that complex systems associated with interpretation of sound, how could they change in gradual steps linking a reptile to a mammal?

But the truth is that they did. The fossils clearly depict that transition and genetic phylogeny confirms it.

It sounds very complex. No doubt about it. But the morphological sequences and DNA corroborate one another and tell the same story time and time again.

And if not common descent then what else would we be witnessing?

This is one of my three examples.

It should also be noted that the bottom of the figure notes carboniferous times, while the top notes Jurassic. 350-150 million years in time. So again, these complex features didn't appear over night, but over 200 million years. You could imagine how many generations that involved, how many small/micro steps adding up. With bird ears, lungs, beaks, feathers and wings...evolving in a similar manner, depicted by fossils, comparative anatomy and genetics which each independently corroborates one another.

And I ask myself again, if not common descent then what else would we be witnessing?

If not through darwinian evolution, who would ever go further to doubt that the succession of fossils depict descent? If the fossils were out of order, sure, descent would be unreasonable to suggest. But here it is. If DNA suggested that mammals were more closely related to fish than reptiles, then yes it would be unreasonable to think that mammals evolved from reptiles. If our physical anatomy was more similar to fish than reptiles, again, descent would be unreasonable to conclude.

But here we are with all three suggesting the same thing. And beyond that, what do we see when we look at the DNA of living things in modern times? We see slow genetic changes...we see micro evolution. Which is exactly what we would expect to see. If we saw no change in DNA at all, Darwin would have a problem. But instead, we see exactly what we would expect to see if common descent were true.

RTP76 · Nov 8, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
"We must envisage changes to their their reproduction system, lungs, how their unique sound production developed, how their migration patterns and sense of direction would have evolved, then we must imagine how these delicate creatures would have survived the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, and so on. "

This is good. Even these features, and research on these features, further support evolution.

And I'll give an example, actually I'll give two, no three examples. Because there actually is research and data on each of these.

But first, I should ask, what is acceptable data, if corroboration of phylogeny and genetics are not?

If you have reptile fossils, then reptiles that look like birds, then bird fossils, and you simultaneously have genes in chickens that you can switch on to give them reptilian teeth, and you further see that DNA based phylogenetic trees identically match the fossil succession...what else would someone need to see?

Would you need a time machine to believe it were true? Or is there something that you could physically see that would convince you? @RTP76

CC: @Aussie Pete

Acceptable forms for data-supported evidence is having demonstrated & documented the claimed mechanisms. So, if we say random mutation and natural selection produced these new systems, demonstrate it... have a case study/experiment where random mutations being acted upon by natural selection produce entirely new systems and/or entirely new body plans, ruling out the possibility of all other mechanisms. There should be documented experiment(s) where at the start of the experiment we have one life form, then at the end we have a new/different body plan - as different as a bird is from a fish, as a fish is from a giraffe, etc....

And I do understand, this probably seems an unreasonable request given the conventional belief that evolution is a very slow process and even in isolated populations experiencing punctuated equilibrium that we could not directly observe such drastic morphological change - as I said before, if I'm to be told evolution can go a mile, I want to see it... go a mile. This is the difference I talked about previously where we have different philosophies of thought and different levels of acceptance based upon our views of God, His word, and our personal biases from experience.

Even if humans had never put forth any effort to study life, we can know that life does not all arise from a universal common ancestor. God makes the claim it did not (not creationists):

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Genesis 2:7

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Genesis 2:19

So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. Genesis 1:21

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. Genesis 1:25

What is written in these verses (and elsewhere in the Bible) indicates 'kinds' of life being created, by God, each separately from the ground. Couldn't God have just as well have said "He formed the creatures of the waters and from them (not the ground) He brought forth the beasts of the earth and every creeping and flying thing. And from the beasts (not the ground) God brought forth man"? It is certainly within the capabilities of the original Hebrew language to convey such a concept and it is certainly within the capabilities of man to understand such a concept (for adherents of Buddhism and Hinduism hold to an idea of reincarnation where we come back as some other life form). So this idea of God creating unique kinds isn't an inference or a limitation of man's understanding at the time, but a direct claim by God. This isn't man's idea (man cannot write of things he was not there to observe), this truth was given/told to man as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Now, under my 'conservative' lens, what phlogeny and genetics do show is that life does diversify but it does so in the context of each kind producing after it's own kind (and this is what is indicated by the Bible as to what we should expect)... and every experiment to date demonstrates this. One of the more well-known experiments is the LTEE (Lenski experiment) where E.Coli was able to adapt to citrate (diversifying), yet it is still E.Coli after 66,000+ generations.

For me, God creating distinct 'kinds' (not a universal common ancestor) was already true and could not be made more true, because this is what God has told us. That said; however, this has been scientifically tested, and confirmed (what we already knew to be true) to be true. This truth was known from the time God revealed it to man, it was known and observed to be true with the Finches of the Galapagos, and every experiment and observed phenomenon since then has only further affirmed this truth.

Job 33:6 · Nov 8, 2019

"Acceptable forms for data-supported evidence is having demonstrated & documented the claimed mechanisms. So, if we say random mutation and natural selection produced these new systems, demonstrate it... have a case study/experiment where random mutations being acted upon by natural selection produce entirely new systems and/or entirely new body plans, ruling out the possibility of all other mechanisms. There should be documented experiment(s) where at the start of the experiment we have one life form, then at the end we have a new/different body plan - as different as a bird is from a fish, as a fish is from a giraffe, etc...."

Giving a chicken teeth, or giving a fly extra legs or giving a sea squirt an additional heart chamber are all things that have been observed or produced in labs. I would consider giving an animal an extra pair of legs, or giving an animal an additional heart chamber, producing a new body plan, if that's what you mean.

Of course in nature, as mentioned before, the process takes hundreds of millions of years. So to request a case study of course is an unreasonable request. Simply because we haven't invented a time machine.

Do you have a reasonable request that could feasibly be provided?

Job 33:6 · Nov 8, 2019

"Now, under my 'conservative' lens, what phlogeny and genetics do show is that life does diversify but it does so in the context of each kind producing after it's own kind"

If this is true, then when phylogeny demonstrates that reptiles evolved to become mammals, then they would be of a single "kind".

It sounds to me like, no matter how feasible common descent may be, no matter how much evidence there is for it, that without a time machine, there is nothing you could see that would convince you. Even if it were hypothetically true, you feel as though you could never accept it because you cannot travel through time to see natural selection produce new "kinds". I would say that this is a liability that contradicts the evidence.

If the evidence suggests that reptiles evolved to be mammals, either you have to reject the evidence, or you have to accept that reptiles and mammals are of the same "kind". Neither of which are feasible options for you. Rather than making impossible requests, and staying in a "gray zone" of not giving definitive answers and being vague about ideas like Mr.Tour, I think it's more reasonable to simply accept what the evidence depicts. For better or for worse, what is, is. And no amount of impossible requests,denial and obscure responses from Mr. Tour can change that.

RTP76 · Nov 8, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
"Acceptable forms for data-supported evidence is having demonstrated & documented the claimed mechanisms. So, if we say random mutation and natural selection produced these new systems, demonstrate it... have a case study/experiment where random mutations being acted upon by natural selection produce entirely new systems and/or entirely new body plans, ruling out the possibility of all other mechanisms. There should be documented experiment(s) where at the start of the experiment we have one life form, then at the end we have a new/different body plan - as different as a bird is from a fish, as a fish is from a giraffe, etc...."

Giving a chicken teeth, or giving a fly extra legs or giving a sea squirt an additional heart chamber are all things that have been observed or produced in labs. I would consider giving an animal an extra pair of legs, or giving an animal an additional heart chamber, producing a new body plan, if that's what you mean.

CC: @Aussie Pete

This is characteristic of the kinds of evolution examples I've generally seen cited. To me, none of these demonstrate/prove evolution from a universal common ancestor, and I would suspect Tour's skepticism of a universal common ancestor is, at least in part, because of this same lack of evidence. In the metaphor, these are a 1-ft movement, but the claim is 5,280 ft. What they demonstrate is a modification to an extant life form, but nowhere has an entirely new system been created de novo, nor is there an entirely new body plan. Interestingly, from these 3 examples, of those produced in labs this would also demonstrate that when someone kind of knows what they are doing, they're able to do it much faster than hundreds of millions of years. Do you believe God knew what He was doing (the Author of life)?

Of course in nature, as mentioned before, the process takes hundreds of millions of years. So to request a case study of course is an unreasonable request. Simply because we haven't invented a time machine.

Do you have a reasonable request that could feasibly be provided?

Not by your definition of reasonable and if I did provide you criteria that you would consider reasonable, it would not demonstrate evolution from a universal common ancestor (as seen with the 3 examples given above). To confirm then, in order for one to believe all life arose from a universal common ancestor, one has to imagine this occurs with the accumulation of the small observable changes that occur within life, correct?

Job 33:6 · Nov 8, 2019

"What they demonstrate is a modification to an extant life form, "

Evolution operates with use of life that is pre existing. So you won't get the formation of an utterly new life form that doesn't have traits of it's predicessors.

That's why it's called "descent with modification".

This is why only micro evolution could ever be physically observed and it's why laboratory experiments could only ever replicate micro evolution. Because evolution occurs in micro steps.

What you're asking to see is a person walk a thousand miles, but of course you could never see such a thing if you could only watch the person walk for a few seconds.

But just because you can't live long enough to see it, doesn't mean that there isn't evidence for it having had occurred. Just as it's unreasonable to claim that a man hasn't walked through snow because you didn't see it, even if there are footprints behind him.
little girl in green jacket walking on snow, footprints in snow,..

Your response is akin to asking scientists to produce a human that can walk a thousand feet in the blink of an eye. And simultaneously, you can't accept that a person could walk a thousand feet without seeing it unfold from step 1 to step 5000, despite the evidence. Despite the tracks in the snow. Despite seeing the man walk in the present day etc.

"To confirm then, in order for one to believe all life arose from a universal common ancestor, one has to imagine this occurs with the accumulation of the small observable changes that occur within life, correct?"

Only in the same way that you have to imagine that a person historically walked through snow, when you didn't witness the action first hand, but their footprints are left in the snow behind them.
https://www.123rf.com/photo_1768207...alking-on-snow-footprints-in-snow-behind.html
Which is to say, yes we were not there to see it, but the evidence suggests it occurred none the less.

There was a question that I asked two times that was important. It was in regards to the succession of fossils and corroborating DNA of the reptile to mammal jaw to ear transitional fossils, if not common descent, then what else would explain what is being seen in the links between reptiles and mammals?

People who accept evidence where it leads, simply accept that it is what it is. Common descent is the only plausible explanation for why reptile fossils and DNA are linked to birds and mammals, and fish linked to amphibians and amphibians to reptiles.

A dolphin looks a lot like a fish, but it's fossil succession is temporally and morphologically linked to terrestrial mammal ancestry and it's DNA and internal comparative anatomy are also closer linked to mammals. This is another example that makes sense in light of common descent. For those who don't accept the idea of common descent of whales from land mammals, the question again would be, what alternative explanation could there be?
whale evolution - Google Search

Aussie Pete · Nov 8, 2019

RTP76 said:
CC: @Aussie Pete

This is characteristic of the kinds of evolution examples I've generally seen cited. To me, none of these demonstrate/prove evolution from a universal common ancestor, and I would suspect Tour's skepticism of a universal common ancestor is, at least in part, because of this same lack of evidence. In the metaphor, these are a 1-ft movement, but the claim is 5,280 ft. What they demonstrate is a modification to an extant life form, but nowhere has an entirely new system been created de novo, nor is there an entirely new body plan. Interestingly, from these 3 examples, of those produced in labs this would also demonstrate that when someone kind of knows what they are doing, they're able to do it much faster than hundreds of millions of years. Do you believe God knew what He was doing (the Author of life)?

Not by your definition of reasonable and if I did provide you criteria that you would consider reasonable, it would not demonstrate evolution from a universal common ancestor (as seen with the 3 examples given above). To confirm then, in order for one to believe all life arose from a universal common ancestor, one has to imagine this occurs with the accumulation of the small observable changes that occur within life, correct?

KomatiiteBIF said:
"Now, under my 'conservative' lens, what phlogeny and genetics do show is that life does diversify but it does so in the context of each kind producing after it's own kind"

If this is true, then when phylogeny demonstrates that reptiles evolved to become mammals, then they would be of a single "kind".
View attachment 266378

It sounds to me like, no matter how feasible common descent may be, no matter how much evidence there is for it, that without a time machine, there is nothing you could see that would convince you. Even if it were hypothetically true, you feel as though you could never accept it because you cannot travel through time to see natural selection produce new "kinds". I would say that this is a liability that contradicts the evidence.

If the evidence suggests that reptiles evolved to be mammals, either you have to reject the evidence, or you have to accept that reptiles and mammals are of the same "kind". Neither of which are feasible options for you. Rather than making impossible requests, and staying in a "gray zone" of not giving definitive answers and being vague about ideas like Mr.Tour, I think it's more reasonable to simply accept what the evidence depicts. For better or for worse, what is, is. And no amount of impossible requests,denial and obscure responses from Mr. Tour can change that.

There is no "evidence". There are interpretations based on observations relying on preconceived notions.

RTP76 · Nov 9, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
What you're asking to see is a person walk a thousand miles, but of course you could never see such a thing if you could only watch the person walk for a few seconds.

But just because you can't live long enough to see it, doesn't mean that there isn't evidence for it having had occurred. Just as it's unreasonable to claim that a man hasn't walked through snow because you didn't see it, even if there are footprints behind him.
little girl in green jacket walking on snow, footprints in snow,..
...
There was a question that I asked two times that was important. It was in regards to the succession of fossils and corroborating DNA of the reptile to mammal jaw to ear transitional fossils, if not common descent, then what else would explain what is being seen in the links between reptiles and mammals?

People who accept evidence where it leads, simply accept that it is what it is. Common descent is the only plausible explanation for why reptile fossils and DNA are linked to birds and mammals, and fish linked to amphibians and amphibians to reptiles.

CC (Just keeping you in the loop in case you have additional commentary as well): @Aussie Pete
Yes, I understand the view of many small successive steps, but there are several difficulties:

1) As Aussie Pete has mentioned, there is a presupposed view that this is happening, and you've conceded this hasn't been observed, so if you presuppose a cause then attribute evidence to that cause, all you're doing is reinforcing the presupposition, though you haven't actually observed it. As Tour has also stated, the alleged mechanisms are also not supported by data-substantiated evidence. In and of itself though, the presupposed cause is still on the table as a possible explanation (of course, ignoring the Bible). Continuing...

2) The fossil record generally does not support the "many-small-successive-steps" above the family / phylum level (that is, fossils do show subtle changes, but they are within a given family / phylum, not crossing into a new family / phylum). Yes, there are a handful that bear some characteristics of others and could convince some depending upon how it is interpreted and their presupposed bias. These cases; however, are hardly representative of the fossil record in general. Gould recognized the lack of transitional forms as did Darwin.

3) DNA only has a half-life of 521 years... so when I hear about DNA similarities from fossils that are 10's or 100's of millions of years old, I'm going to find it dubious. The fossil record gives an account of the majority of body plan types being evident within the Cambrian (and yes I know you view the Cambrian as being millions of years). The assumption of [theistic] evolutionists, is that God created one life, then walked away to let it "do it's thing", but ignores that the genetic similarities (and dissimilarities) in the created kinds could have just as well been created by God... and yes one can imagine a series of small changes to walk from one form to another, but 1) when God revealed creation He indicated otherwise, and 2) the fossil record doesn't give support of transitions when the allegedly first distinct body plans show up.

4) Suggesting the evidence ONLY supports universal common ancestry is a false dilemma logical fallacy (because it's already established there is no data-substantiated evidence, but rather inferences and story-telling... and you keep having to use the snow print analogy here, so this supports the story-telling). For me the evidence leads to believing that God created distinct kinds.

Your response is akin to asking scientists to produce a human that can walk a thousand feet in the blink of an eye. And simultaneously, you can't accept that a person could walk a thousand feet without seeing it unfold from step 1 to step 5000, despite the evidence. Despite the tracks in the snow. Despite seeing the man walk in the present day etc.

I think I already established we would have different standards of acceptance. I operate under the standards as defined by the scientific method (careful observation, experimentation, scrutiny of conclusions drawn, etc...). I understand evolutionary biology allows for observation of something over 'here' then if a plausible story can explain what is observed, it is held to be the likely cause. This; however, isn't careful observation of the process and the mechanisms, but an inference that the process happened and it was the presumed mechanisms.

"To confirm then, in order for one to believe all life arose from a universal common ancestor, one has to imagine this occurs with the accumulation of the small observable changes that occur within life, correct?"

Only in the same way that you have to imagine that a person historically walked through snow, when you didn't witness the action first hand, but their footprints are left in the snow behind them.
little girl in green jacket walking on snow, footprints in snow,..
Which is to say, yes we were not there to see it, but the evidence suggests it occurred none the less.

In summary then, yes one has to imagine, thx for confirming. Have you considered the possibility the issue isn't the amount of evidence you feel supports evolution, but the amount of imagination required to support evolution (not to mention the amount of evidence that doesn't support evolution from a universal common ancestor)?

A dolphin looks a lot like a fish, but it's fossil succession is temporally and morphologically linked to terrestrial mammal ancestry and it's DNA and internal comparative anatomy are also closer linked to mammals. This is another example that makes sense in light of common descent. For those who don't accept the idea of common descent of whales from land mammals, the question again would be, what alternative explanation could there be?
whale evolution - Google Search

I don't know that a dolphin looks a lot like a fish--that's a subjective statement (not an objective/quantitative statement), but as a possible alternative explanation, how about that God made fish and their DNA and He made dolphins/whales and their DNA and he made mammals and their DNA? The Bible seems to indicate this.

I can't speak for Aussie Pete, but I've been following the creation/evolution debate for over 25 years and while I've just recently started commenting on the forum, I've been reading and following along for quite some time. There is nothing you've presented I'm not already aware. I'm not looking to convince you evolution from a universal common ancestor is not true, and you've not going to convince Aussie Peter or myself that universal common descent is true.

I'm just here primarily to encourage and support those who do believe in God's account of creation and it seems odd that folks like you and others think it's your God-ordained mission to come to a forum of Christians and try to dissuade this... and do so in the face of 1) God's word making the claim He created life as described in the creation account and 2) there being no empirical evidence contradicting the Bible, and 3) any evidence contradicting the Bible is based upon conjecture and unfalsifiable biased interpretations. It seems some scientists liken faith as something to put in a box and left outside of the office... like when God created the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, these scientists view the Bible as the lesser light of truth that is good for Sunday morning and 'relationship things', and science is the greater light of truth that is good for the rest of the week and the history of the universe. Science is their religion and those who do not leave the Bible at the door when they go into the lab are to be derided.

Just as well, I'll continue to encourage believers that hold to the truth of God's word and will call out what scientific claims are supported by actual data and what scientific claims are supported by less.

Job 33:6 · Nov 9, 2019

"but as a possible alternative explanation, how about that God made fish and their DNA and He made dolphins/whales and their DNA and he made mammals and their DNA? The Bible seems to indicate this."

And how does this idea logically explain transitional sequences such as the reptile to mammal jaw to ear? Or rather, how would someone logically deduce the order of fossils and DNA from your proposal?
reptile mammal jaw evolution - Google Search

The truth is that it doesn't. Your response does not explain why dolphin sequences ought to follow mammalian sequences while fish predate amphibian sequences. Your response doesn't explain why the fossil record is identical to phylogenetic trees of DNA either.

However with common descent, both details are explained quite easily. Terrestrial mammals transition to dolphins because dolphins descended from them, just as amphibians descended from fish. The fossil record and phylogenetic trees of DNA sequences match because descendents are modified offspring of their ancestors that leave a fossil record through time as they pass away and are buried and fossilized. Therefore dolphins of today are genetically more similar to hippos and giraffes while fish are genetically more similar to frogs or alligators than they are giraffes or hippos, despite the fact that dolphins physical bodies appear to be more similar to many fish than they appear to be similar of giraffes or elephants.

If all life were simply created out of thin air without ancestor- descendant relatedness, then we wouldn't have any explanation for why dolphins appear in the fossil record right after dolphin like mammals, nor would we have any explanation for why the DNA of dolphins appear to be modified versions of hippo DNA. As an example.

At best, all that could be suggested from your response is that God created terrestrial mammals, deleted them and created terrestrial mammals with dolphin traits, deleted them and created dolphins with terrestrial mammal traits, deleted them then created dolphins. And over the entity of the fossil record God would have deleted and recreated all life on Earth, thousands or even millions of times over and over and over again.

Which compared to the simple idea of an animal living, giving birth to a baby with slightly different DNA, then dying and joining the fossil record (all of which are readily observed in the world today), your response is somewhat "off the wall".

Picture for reference: elephant evolution - Google Search

So God made paleomastodon 38 million years ago, then said "oh this is not good", deleted paleomastodon and created the similar yet slightly different gomphotherium and mammut And stegodon at 24 million years ago and then was like "well not quite what I want to live", deleted Gomphotherium and created anancus and primelephas at 5 million years ago, then was like, "oh not quite right", deleted Primelephas, Stegodon Anancus and mammut 2 million years ago and created Modern elephants and then later the Whooly mammoth 400 thousand years ago, then deleted whooly mammoths. Then after all of the above, it was good.

But further, this only covers 38 million years of succession, whereas the fossil succession and DNA phylogeny goes back over 550 million years. So you could imagine the above, times 15 over. And that's just for elephants alone, of the billions of species of fossils we have.

It's far more plausible to simply say that paleomastodon gave birth to Gomphotherium, then to Primelephas, then to Modern elephants. Ancestors progressively died, the fossils make up the succession and their DNA appears similar to one another much in the same way that my DNA is similar to my parents and other people that I am related to. All of which, including descent with modification and speciation, we observe today.

Job 33:6 · Nov 9, 2019

"the alleged mechanisms are also not supported by data-substantiated evidence"

This is akin to saying, because a man walking a thousand feet in snow hasn't been observed, there is no data nor evidence substantiating the claim that a man could or had done so. This doesn't make any sense. Nobody ever observed Pompeii erupt with modern scientific data and records of how it unfolded, but of course evidence remains after the fact. We didn't personally need to witness Pompeii erupt to understand how it lakely had.

Just the same, we don't need a time machine to observe evolution over millions of years in order to propose a mechanism based on today's observation of mutations and natural selection. Just as we don't need a time machine to witness the ice age of the pleistocene to recognize that it happened through observation of evidence that was left behind. Etc.

Job 33:6 · Nov 9, 2019

"Gould recognized the lack of transitional forms as did Darwin."

Gould openly recognized an abundance of transitional fossils. It is false to suggest otherwise. You should read his work. Darwin of course lived over a hundred years ago before countless discoveries of the past century.

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261

""But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
"

Job 33:6 · Nov 9, 2019

"2) the fossil record doesn't give support of transitions when the allegedly first distinct body plans show up."

Animals of today didn't exist in the Cambrian. Mammals for example, didn't show up until far later. You state that the fossil record doesn't give support of transitions when the first body plans appeared, however I've been giving examples in posts, describing when mammals appeared. Reptiles didn't appear until the carboniferous, there are plenty of transitionals for them. Amphibians appeared in the devonian. There are plenty of amphibian transitionals. Birds appeared in the mid mesozoic. There are plenty for them as well.

In a discussion of common descent, the above body plans are significant to the discussion and all appear beyond the precambrian. But what you're suggesting is that because precambrian soft bodied microbe fossils do not exist within ancient hadean highly metamorphosed rock, that somehow the fossil record offers insufficient support for common ancestry.

Which, to anyone who is actually familiar with paleontology, this response just sounds silly.

It's like saying that because the foot tracks of the man walking in the snow, because they slowly fade 3000 feet back that it is therefore impossible to determine if the man has walked even 1000 feet. Arguing that transitionals don't exist for Precambrian soft bodied microbes is not a valid response to the plethora of post Cambrian body plans and their observed transitions.

Aussie Pete · Nov 9, 2019

RTP76 said:
CC (Just keeping you in the loop in case you have additional commentary as well): @Aussie Pete
Yes, I understand the view of many small successive steps, but there are several difficulties:

1) As Aussie Pete has mentioned, there is a presupposed view that this is happening, and you've conceded this hasn't been observed, so if you presuppose a cause then attribute evidence to that cause, all you're doing is reinforcing the presupposition, though you haven't actually observed it. As Tour has also stated, the alleged mechanisms are also not supported by data-substantiated evidence. In and of itself though, the presupposed cause is still on the table as a possible explanation (of course, ignoring the Bible). Continuing...

2) The fossil record generally does not support the "many-small-successive-steps" above the family / phylum level (that is, fossils do show subtle changes, but they are within a given family / phylum, not crossing into a new family / phylum). Yes, there are a handful that bear some characteristics of others and could convince some depending upon how it is interpreted and their presupposed bias. These cases; however, are hardly representative of the fossil record in general. Gould recognized the lack of transitional forms as did Darwin.

3) DNA only has a half-life of 521 years... so when I hear about DNA similarities from fossils that are 10's or 100's of millions of years old, I'm going to find it dubious. The fossil record gives an account of the majority of body plan types being evident within the Cambrian (and yes I know you view the Cambrian as being millions of years). The assumption of [theistic] evolutionists, is that God created one life, then walked away to let it "do it's thing", but ignores that the genetic similarities (and dissimilarities) in the created kinds could have just as well been created by God... and yes one can imagine a series of small changes to walk from one form to another, but 1) when God revealed creation He indicated otherwise, and 2) the fossil record doesn't give support of transitions when the allegedly first distinct body plans show up.

4) Suggesting the evidence ONLY supports universal common ancestry is a false dilemma logical fallacy (because it's already established there is no data-substantiated evidence, but rather inferences and story-telling... and you keep having to use the snow print analogy here, so this supports the story-telling). For me the evidence leads to believing that God created distinct kinds.

I think I already established we would have different standards of acceptance. I operate under the standards as defined by the scientific method (careful observation, experimentation, scrutiny of conclusions drawn, etc...). I understand evolutionary biology allows for observation of something over 'here' then if a plausible story can explain what is observed, it is held to be the likely cause. This; however, isn't careful observation of the process and the mechanisms, but an inference that the process happened and it was the presumed mechanisms.

In summary then, yes one has to imagine, thx for confirming. Have you considered the possibility the issue isn't the amount of evidence you feel supports evolution, but the amount of imagination required to support evolution (not to mention the amount of evidence that doesn't support evolution from a universal common ancestor)?

I don't know that a dolphin looks a lot like a fish--that's a subjective statement (not an objective/quantitative statement), but as a possible alternative explanation, how about that God made fish and their DNA and He made dolphins/whales and their DNA and he made mammals and their DNA? The Bible seems to indicate this.

I can't speak for Aussie Pete, but I've been following the creation/evolution debate for over 25 years and while I've just recently started commenting on the forum, I've been reading and following along for quite some time. There is nothing you've presented I'm not already aware. I'm not looking to convince you evolution from a universal common ancestor is not true, and you've not going to convince Aussie Peter or myself that universal common descent is true.

I'm just here primarily to encourage and support those who do believe in God's account of creation and it seems odd that folks like you and others think it's your God-ordained mission to come to a forum of Christians and try to dissuade this... and do so in the face of 1) God's word making the claim He created life as described in the creation account and 2) there being no empirical evidence contradicting the Bible, and 3) any evidence contradicting the Bible is based upon conjecture and unfalsifiable biased interpretations. It seems some scientists liken faith as something to put in a box and left outside of the office... like when God created the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, these scientists view the Bible as the lesser light of truth that is good for Sunday morning and 'relationship things', and science is the greater light of truth that is good for the rest of the week and the history of the universe. Science is their religion and those who do not leave the Bible at the door when they go into the lab are to be derided.

Just as well, I'll continue to encourage believers that hold to the truth of God's word and will call out what scientific claims are supported by actual data and what scientific claims are supported by less.

Thanks for including me in the loop. For a lighter (and scathing) assessment of evolution have a look at this site: Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

He goes by the pseudonym Do-While Jones. He is a genius but in the computer realm.

RTP76 · Nov 11, 2019

Aussie Pete said:
Thanks for including me in the loop. For a lighter (and scathing) assessment of evolution have a look at this site: Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

He goes by the pseudonym Do-While Jones. He is a genius but in the computer realm.

Thanks for sharing, will check it out!

RTP76 · Nov 11, 2019

To: @KomatiiteBIF
CC: @Aussie Pete

You interpret similarities in jaw structures as a "transitional sequence", but you've observed nothing to validate that as the exclusive conclusion. Similarities in jaw structure can as easily be interpreted as common design.

It is also too oversimplified of a view to say mutations support universal common descent. DNA is A, G, C, and T and it is too wholesale of an assumption to infer that transitions, or substitutions like A <->T, G <-> C, and A <-> C / G <-> T arose by accident vs an intentional alteration/coding. We can see a dolphin's DNA looks similar to that of a mammal and infer it means one evolved into the other, or we can interpret the same evidence and conclude God intentionally sequenced the way He intended (and no, He wouldn't have to create one, then delete it and create a second with some of the traits of the first). We've already established the process was not observed but rather imagined, so no amount of analogies makes it any more real except as a gedanken exercise. Every time you attempt to suggest transitional sequences to support universal common descent, I'm going to remind you that the process has never been observed and no biologist and no chemist is able to explain the mechanisms allegedly driving the process (in a way substantiated by data that is... I know there is no lack of evolutionary stories to support and explain the process).

Inferring random changes produced a water-dwelling mammal from a land-dwelling mammal by comparing A, G, C, T and morphology is like making evolutionary assumptions of 0's and 1's and computer chip shapes, sizes, and placements. It means nothing more than a common design. Guess what you'll find in two completely unrelated computer programs that were developed separately, by different people in different companies, but they perform somewhat similar tasks and were both written on the programming language of C++? Answer > Similar code. Every time. You can imagine one program evolved into the other by way of finding key markers in one that also exist in the other, but that's only because you didn't know the language and you didn't observe the process to know better. I know you are trying to make the evidence seem mutually exclusive to your paradigm, but it only appears that way to you because your conclusions are based upon a myriad of either unobserved or unfalsifiable assumptions that you were trained to believe... but those who trained you also never observed or confirmed these assumptions, nor their predecessors, and so on.

I could just as easily say it is far more plausible that God created the distinct ancestral kinds because:

1) It doesn't require making up assumptions and story-telling using fictitious analogies, because
2) It's directly claimed by God in His word
3) Evidence of intentional design is empirically evident. Only a human can conceive of an idea and alter "code" or design a process to create an entirely new function/plan/created 'thing' and this is not because we are like the other beasts of the field (such as chimps), but it is obvious humans are unique (in fact, from everything else) because only we are created in the likeness/image of God (The Creator).

No, God did not create anything to "deceive" scientists either; in fact, He made it clear what He did right there in His book--just read it, and believe it. The only reason you don't believe it has nothing to do with anything you observed differently--instead you just substituted what God has revealed with the many conclusions from layer upon layer of assumptions not supported by data as Tour repeatedly points out. If the 'evidence' is 'leading you' to reject the historicity and truth of the Bible, it's only because you're leaving it in the back seat (of your car and your mind) when you walk into work. How is that any different than the 'evidence leading' the atheist to continue to reject God. Sure, they also have a mile-long list of what seems like valid claims in their pocket, ready to show when questioned. But like evolution, when we start looking at what is actually known vs what is conjecture, the issue becomes self-evident.

Job 33:6 · Nov 11, 2019

RTP76 said:
To: @KomatiiteBIF
CC: @Aussie Pete

You interpret similarities in jaw structures as a "transitional sequence", but you've observed nothing to validate that as the exclusive conclusion. Similarities in jaw structure can as easily be interpreted as common design.

It is also too oversimplified of a view to say mutations support universal common descent. DNA is A, G, C, and T and it is too wholesale of an assumption to infer that transitions, or substitutions like A <->T, G <-> C, and A <-> C / G <-> T arose by accident vs an intentional alteration/coding. We can see a dolphin's DNA looks similar to that of a mammal and infer it means one evolved into the other, or we can interpret the same evidence and conclude God intentionally sequenced the way He intended (and no, He wouldn't have to create one, then delete it and create a second with some of the traits of the first). We've already established the process was not observed but rather imagined, so no amount of analogies makes it any more real except as a gedanken exercise. Every time you attempt to suggest transitional sequences to support universal common descent, I'm going to remind you that the process has never been observed and no biologist and no chemist is able to explain the mechanisms allegedly driving the process (in a way substantiated by data that is... I know there is no lack of evolutionary stories to support and explain the process).

Inferring random changes produced a water-dwelling mammal from a land-dwelling mammal by comparing A, G, C, T and morphology is like making evolutionary assumptions of 0's and 1's and computer chip shapes, sizes, and placements. It means nothing more than a common design. Guess what you'll find in two completely unrelated computer programs that were developed separately, by different people in different companies, but they perform somewhat similar tasks and were both written on the programming language of C++? Answer > Similar code. Every time. You can imagine one program evolved into the other by way of finding key markers in one that also exist in the other, but that's only because you didn't know the language and you didn't observe the process to know better. I know you are trying to make the evidence seem mutually exclusive to your paradigm, but it only appears that way to you because your conclusions are based upon a myriad of either unobserved or unfalsifiable assumptions that you were trained to believe... but those who trained you also never observed or confirmed these assumptions, nor their predecessors, and so on.

I could just as easily say it is far more plausible that God created the distinct ancestral kinds because:

1) It doesn't require making up assumptions and story-telling using fictitious analogies, because
2) It's directly claimed by God in His word
3) Evidence of intentional design is empirically evident. Only a human can conceive of an idea and alter "code" or design a process to create an entirely new function/plan/created 'thing' and this is not because we are like the other beasts of the field (such as chimps), but it is obvious humans are unique (in fact, from everything else) because only we are created in the likeness/image of God (The Creator).

No, God did not create anything to "deceive" scientists either; in fact, He made it clear what He did right there in His book--just read it, and believe it. The only reason you don't believe it has nothing to do with anything you observed differently--instead you just substituted what God has revealed with the many conclusions from layer upon layer of assumptions not supported by data as Tour repeatedly points out. If the 'evidence' is 'leading you' to reject the historicity and truth of the Bible, it's only because you're leaving it in the back seat (of your car and your mind) when you walk into work. How is that any different than the 'evidence leading' the atheist to continue to reject God. Sure, they also have a mile-long list of what seems like valid claims in their pocket, ready to show when questioned. But like evolution, when we start looking at what is actually known vs what is conjecture, the issue becomes self-evident.

I would just refer back to posts 51. Your response that the fossil succession and corroborating DNA phylogeny is a product of intelligent design lacks the ability to explain why the fossil succession and DNA sequences corroborate one another in the order that they do.

Why would dolphins appear right after dolphin like terrestrial mammals in the same geographic location? Easy, dolphins descended from terrestrial mammals.

Your answer? Well God created terrestrial mammals that looked like dolphins out of thin air, then deleted them in thin air, then created dolphins in the same geographic location right after, out of thin air. No further explanation needed...

Paleomastodon just happens to look as if it were an ancestor of modern elephants, but in reality it is not. Lets be honest, this response is just silly.

We can use biological traits of modern day living species to predict the temporal location of fossils and their depth within the earth via common descent and fossil succession. Your response has no such capability because it has no scientific substance beyond an empty claim.

It also lacks reason with respect to the discussion in post 51.

You continue to insist on a lack of mechanism available to explain common descent, in which case I would refer back to post 52. We don't need a time machine to understand processes of the past. Plate tectonics is another example. Nobody has a time machine to go back to see Africa and south america united, but we can infer information based on slow movement of tectonic plates today and evidence left behind by past events. Just like in evolution.

Lastly, the fossil succession objectively exists. You can measure the diameter of reptilian jaw bones as they shrink in size over time into mammalian ear fossils. It's not up for debate whether or not the fossil succession exists. See post 46 for the diagram.

RTP76 · Nov 12, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
I would just refer back to posts 51. Your response that the fossil succession and corroborating DNA phylogeny is a product of intelligent design lacks the ability to explain why the fossil succession and DNA sequences corroborate one another in the order that they do.

CC: @Aussie Pete

I don't wholesale interpret the fossil 'succession' as an order of appearance of life as you do... so every issue you would bring up that assumes order of appearance, we will inherently always have a disconnect... like below, so here we go...

Why would dolphins appear right after dolphin like terrestrial mammals in the same geographic location? Easy, dolphins descended from terrestrial mammals.

Your answer? Well God created terrestrial mammals that looked like dolphins out of thin air, then deleted them in thin air, then created dolphins in the same geographic location right after, out of thin air. No further explanation needed...

Nobody said God created dolphins out of thin air, you're making absurd statements based upon your a priori commitment to the evolutionary thought paradigm, then disputing your own absurd statements. I guess good job at recognizing they are absurd, but you've done nothing to actually refute God's direct involvement in creating distinct life during the six days of creation. That's what is written in His word. You've read it.

There are no terretrial 'dolphins'... of the similarities between dolphins and terretrial mammals, this just indicates a common pattern of design. As I indicated early on, it would seem really odd to propose that if God made different kinds that each kind should be completely different from other kinds such that there could be no similar structures, no similar functions, no similarities in genetic code, yet all life must reside on earth and thrive / multiply. Besides being written in His word, it is also reasonable and logical that there should be similarities in living organisms under the paradigm that God created distinct kinds from the beginning.

Paleomastodon just happens to look as if it were an ancestor of modern elephants, but in reality it is not. Lets be honest, this response is just silly.

Yes I would agree you're making more silly responses.

We can use biological traits of modern day living species to predict the temporal location of fossils and their depth within the earth via common descent and fossil succession. Your response has no such capability because it has no scientific substance beyond an empty claim.

It also lacks reason with respect to the discussion in post 51.

Please bring up Tiktaalik, so I can tell you it's predicted location was later discovered to be preceded by tetrapod tracks conventionally dated to be millions of years older. Too bad you feel God's word is an empty claim, just as well, it's not my word and you don't have to give an account to me.

You continue to insist on a lack of mechanism available to explain common descent, in which case I would refer back to post 52. We don't need a time machine to understand processes of the past. Plate tectonics is another example. Nobody has a time machine to go back to see Africa and south america united, but we can infer information based on slow movement of tectonic plates today and evidence left behind by past events. Just like in evolution.

Lastly, the fossil succession objectively exists. You can measure the diameter of reptilian jaw bones as they shrink in size over time into mammalian ear fossils. It's not up for debate whether or not the fossil succession exists. See post 46 for the diagram.

Only in your mind is it not up for debate--diagrams are not data-substantiated evidence, in this case they are drawings based upon a biased view for which you've admitted nobody has observed > they just help to illustrate a process you imagine produced the result. To me, what the fossil 'succession' shows is generally a transition from ancestral created kinds to their corresponding descendants. The fossil record; however, does not have much evidence supporting all of the presupposed transitions from a universal common ancestor.

Also, it is not false to suggest that Gould did not recognize gaps in the fossil record... punctuated equilibrium as a concept is not needed if the fossil record gives abundant evidence of minuscule transitions, but it doesn't. Further, the artifact hypothesis would never have been developed either if there weren't gaps and discordance in the fossil record. Both gaps and discordance are expected under the biblical view that God created distinct kinds during creation. You, of course, are free to disagree and continue refuting absurd statements (that I never see creation scientists nor scientists within the ID community making such statements).

And on that point, I'll ask you: Pete and Repeat are on a bridge and Pete jumps off, who is left? That is what is going on here if you haven't noticed. I told you up front of how I interpret the evidence and no amount of conjecture (diagrams, story-telling, analogies and all) on your part will accomplish otherwise, so you're free to continue repeating yourself to me and I'm happy to repeatedly point out that your conclusions aren't substantiated. Tour calls this 'collective confusion' from which you keep repeating. How bizarre that you would continue to go down this road when I already told you in advance what my position is--you might as well be trying to make a case for Mohammad even though I'm committed to Jesus. Will it help you reach the conclusion you need to reach if I keep track of how many times you repeat yourself and the standard evolutionary conjecture?

P.S. It's also apparent you've gradually stepped away from trying to prove a universal common ancestor and have delved into evidence within lower level phyla and families of organisms where variation does sometimes occur--and this is expected within the view that God created distinct kinds. Trying to make linkages at lower levels does not support the claim that all life arose from a universal common ancestor.

Job 33:6 · Nov 12, 2019

"Nobody said God created dolphins out of thin air, you're making absurd statements based upon your a priori commitment to the evolutionary thought paradigm"

Then what exactly are you proposing if not the miraculous appearance of animals out of thin air?

"Please bring up Tiktaalik, so I can tell you it's predicted location was later discovered to be preceded by tetrapod tracks conventionally dated to be millions of years older. "

I'll bring up tiltaalik so that I might inform you that alleged terrestrial tracks predating tiltaalik are contested and that no actual tetrapod bone has been found to predate tiktaalik, in case you thought tetrapod bones had actually been found. Indeed the traces have be reinterpreted as fish traces (see link below). But even further, the trace marks themselves post date fish and predate fully developed tetrapods, where we would expect early tetrapod trackways none the less (if that were truly what they were), given that common descent were true.

To clarify, if the first alleged trackway were discovered anywhere beyond the devonian (mesozoic, cenozoic, proterozoic, hadean, archean, carboniferous, ordovician, Cambrian, Permian etc.), you might have a fair counter argument. However the alleged trackways still exists where common descent suggests that they ought to be (right around the beginning to mid devonian), none the less. Even if the alleged trackways were found at the very end of the silurian, it still wouldn't contradict the theory of evolution (though it would be surprising).

Beyond all this still, tiktaaliks locality was predicted none the less. Nobody has ever found silurian, ordovician, Cambrian nor precambrian tetrapod-hybrid fish fossils.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491

Anyway...
I will one-up you further by pointing toward research on immune cells also used to predict the temporal locality of human-chimpanzee ancestral fossils as well.

Immunological time scale for hominid evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

In this case, biological traits of modern day species were used to predict the temporal locality of fossils which at the time were even doubted by paleontologists to exist. Research later demonstrated greater accuracy in biological predictions than paleontological with respect to finding fossils, at least in this instance.

I'll just quote myself from another post:

Paleontologists were mistaken in suggesting that ramapithecus was the first direct ancestor of modern man (see below). This being an early suggestion based on fossil finds. Ramapithecus | fossil primate genus

Ramapithecus, fossil primate dating from the Middle and Late Miocene epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years ago). For a time in the 1960s and ’70s, Ramapithecus was thought to be a distinct genus that was the first direct ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens) before it became regarded as that of the orangutan ancestor Sivapithecus.

"The first challenge to the theory came in the late 1960s from American biochemist Allan Wilson and American anthropologist Vincent Sarich, who, at the University of California, Berkeley, had been comparing the molecular chemistry of albumins (blood proteins) among various animal species. They concluded that the ape-human divergence must have occurred much later than Ramapithecus. (It is now thought that the final split took place some 6 million to 8 million years ago.)"

"Wilson and Sarich’s argument was initially dismissed by anthropologists, but biochemical and fossil evidence mounted in favour of it. Finally, in 1976, Pilbeam discovered a complete Ramapithecus jaw, not far from the initial fossil find, that had a distinctive V shape and thus differed markedly from the parabolic shape of the jaws of members of the human lineage. He soon repudiated his belief in Ramapithecus as a human ancestor, and the theory was largely abandoned by the early 1980s. Ramapithecus fossils subsequently were found to resemble those of the fossil primate genus Sivapithecus, which is now regarded as ancestral to the orangutan; the belief also grew that Ramapithecus probably should be included in the Sivapithecus genus."

In this case, molecular biology was used to predict the location of particular fossils of a transition, which contradicted earlier paleontological thought. And the biologists turned out to be correct, in which they argued that the first fossils for human ancestry would be discovered (or ought to be discovered if at all) closer to 6-8 million years old, as opposed to 5 million (as suggested by paleontologists). Which ultimately served to be corroborated and confirmed by later fossil discoveries such as sahelanthropus (which has human traits and chimpanzee traits and is dated to 8 million years ago as the biologists had previously predicted that such a fossil would).

So, the fossil record was used in some ways in making the predictions, however in this case, biology "out-performed" paleontology in predicting the precise temporal location of fossils (using other more distant fossils for calibration). Paleontology then basically was updated and corrected based on the latest and greatest discoveries which provided an understanding of evolution and the fossil record with higher precision than before.

The bottom line:

No credible scientist doubts the existence of the fossil succession nor the existence of a plethora of transitional forms. It is true that Darwin was unfamiliar with the succession, but again, he lived over 100 years ago.

James Tour demolishes secular claims of solving the origin of life

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads