Are there transitional fossils?

[RickG]

You said that fossils can only form after flood conditions. The fossils that exist in the Gobi Desert and other landlocked deserts show you that you are wrong!
Pay attention to the conversation next time!

The Gobi has not always been a desert.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I hear you. Falsifying the theory of evolution is easy. What we are actually dealing with is an entrenched dogma and a psychological condition we call cognitive dissonance.

I don't really mind these discussions, though. I've been doing this for a long time. The good thing about their arguments, they never change; whereas new discoveries occur overtime that continue to refute the theory of evolution.

Just a quick:

Fish don't die and go to the seabed to get buried. They float to the surface and get eaten.

Additionally, "Age layers" has problems:

Spoiler

Do you know what happens to bodies of animals that aren't eaten and the natural gas in the body that keeps them buoyant runs out? Spoiler: THEY SINK! How do you not know that basic fact?!

And next time you post pictures about things you claim are a 'problem', do the smart thing and actually say WHY they are a problem. Because all of us who know anything about geology past a high school level knows what those pictures are of, and they do not support your case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Gobi has not always been a desert.

Yes, I know but it is now a desert so I will call it a desert. Also, it is a cold desert, in direct contrast to the Sahara desert.

 

[RickG]

Newsflash, we have over 400 million fossils in museums around the world, not counting the millions still laying at the dig sites.

Source?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I hear you. Falsifying the theory of evolution is easy. What we are actually dealing with is an entrenched dogma and a psychological condition we call cognitive dissonance.

I don't really mind these discussions, though. I've been doing this for a long time. The good thing about their arguments, they never change; whereas new discoveries occur overtime that continue to refute the theory of evolution.

Just a quick:

Fish don't die and go to the seabed to get buried. They float to the surface and get eaten.

Additionally, "Age layers" has problems:

Spoiler

Not to mention fossilized trees that extend through their millions of years of layering.

Even their own science says fossils are formed from rapid burial which prevent decomposition. They know it was a flood, but they have desperately tried to make it into millions of small local floods. Even if we know from observational fact that every local flood deposits a layer unique to that locality.

They know this as well, but it is indeed entrenched dogma we are trying to overcome, not actual science. Cognitive dissonance indeed. Actually it has become a religion to itself, and we are not questioning the science, but challenging their faith.

EDIT: Not to mention we can dig in any river, lake or ocean bed and won't find fish bones piling up awaiting fossilization.

And if fossilization is so rare the fact we have millions in the same strata just shows it was a catastrophic worldwide event. Of water since they are with a few exceptions all found in sedimentary layers.

 

[Abraxos]

So where did the wolves come from? Why did they change into huskies?

Basically this is what we're talking about when we talk about variations. This is yet another example that is against the theory of evolution because all these varieties of dogs show how rich the genome was in the original. This is not a "bottom up" evolutionary process but a "top down".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sigh

And where in your fantasy world does sand come from?

Eroded rocks. Where are you going with this line of logic or are you just being deliberately obtuse to make yourself feel smarter?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Basically this is what we're talking about when we talk about variations. This is yet another example that is against the theory of evolution because all these varieties of dogs show how rich the genome was in the original. This is not a "bottom up" evolutionary process but a "top down".

A family tree can be top down or bottom up. And FORCED EVOLUTION BY MAN does not invalidate evolution.

 

[RickG]

Yes, I know but it is now a desert so I will call it a desert. Also, it is a cold desert, in direct contrast to the Sahara desert.

Just trying to make the point that the fossils in the Golbi Desert did not form under desert conditions. As for the coldest desert, that would be Antarctica.

 

[Jimmy D]

Basically this is what we're talking about when we talk about variations. This is yet another example that is against the theory of evolution because all these varieties of dogs show how rich the genome was in the original. This is not a "bottom up" evolutionary process but a "top down".

Thanks, but I was asking justa where wolves come from.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just trying to make the point that the fossils in the Golbi Desert did not form under desert conditions. As for the coldest desert, that would be Antarctica.

Yes I know.

 

[RickG]

Not to mention fossilized trees that extend through their millions of years of layering.

Fossilized trees do not extend through millions or even thousands of years of layering. And yes, I know there are pictures that seem to indicate that they do but that is not the factual case.

 

[Abraxos]

A family tree can be top down or bottom up. And FORCED EVOLUTION BY MAN does not invalidate evolution.

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I don't think the Gray Wolf can time-travel to the future.

Basically what I mean by "top down" is that the Gray Wolf had all the facets that are seen in the vast diversity of dogs we see today. As you "trickle down" the Gray Wolfs features there is a loss of genetic variation. For example the pug has no genetic makeup in it to create a dog with long legs or a big heavy coat. You have to reintroduce that genetic into the pug so it's off-spring has that genetic capability to have long legs and/or a big heavy coat.

This in and of itself shows that there was not a "bottom up" meaning an increase in complexity as the theory of evolution says, but shows there is a loss of genetic variety.

 

[AV1611VET]

By whom?

QV please:

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

SOURCE

If the fossil record didn't exist, neither would the concept of evolution.

Right ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

Fossils are not found that way.

Do you remember saying this in Post 649?

Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you know what happens to bodies of animals that aren't eaten and the natural gas in the body that keeps them buoyant runs out? Spoiler: THEY SINK! How do you not know that basic fact?!

And next time you post pictures about things you claim are a 'problem', do the smart thing and actually say WHY they are a problem. Because all of us who know anything about geology past a high school level knows what those pictures are of, and they do not support your case.

And yet we do not find bones of fishes, or any other animal for that matter sinking to the bottom and beginning the process of fossilization. They must be buried rapidly to prevent decay. Go test that for yourself, go dig in any river bed, lake, or ocean and you won't find but maybe a scrap or two of bone left from those that recently died. The rest will have decomposed away. So again, yes it is a problem for you, if you accept the reality of actual observations of the real world and don't ignore them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I don't think the Gray Wolf can time-travel to the future.

Basically what I mean by "top down" is that the Gray Wolf had all the facets that are seen in the vast diversity of dogs we see today. As you "trickle down" the Gray Wolfs features there is a loss of genetic variation. For example the pug has no genetic makeup in it to create a dog with long legs or a big heavy coat. You have to reintroduce that genetic into the pug so it's off-spring has that genetic capability to have long legs and/or a big heavy coat.

This in and of itself shows that there was not a "bottom up" meaning an increase in complexity as the theory of evolution says, but shows there is a loss of genetic variety.

That and the fact that even they want to claim the genome is 98% junk DNA, because it is degrading from a perfect state with all possible combinations into an imperfect state with fewer and fewer combinations. Just like we see with dogs who's genetic errors build up over time until survivability becomes an issue. They are not becoming more advanced, but more and more restricted to their genetic states.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I don't think the Gray Wolf can time-travel to the future.

Basically what I mean by "top down" is that the Gray Wolf had all the facets that are seen in the vast diversity of dogs we see today. As you "trickle down" the Gray Wolfs features there is a loss of genetic variation. For example the pug has no genetic makeup in it to create a dog with long legs or a big heavy coat. You have to reintroduce that genetic into the pug so it's off-spring has that genetic capability to have long legs and/or a big heavy coat.

This in and of itself shows that there was not a "bottom up" meaning an increase in complexity as the theory of evolution says, but shows there is a loss of genetic variety.

How does a Husky's genome differ from a Grey Wolf's? What genetic information is it missing?

If you keep selectively breeding the Pugs with the longest legs will you end up with a longer legged pug variation?

 

[RickG]

QV please:


SOURCE
Right ... and I'm Genghis Khan.
Do you remember saying this in Post 649?

I don't see how any of that answers my question to your comment: "1. The fossil record is one of the weakest ways of showing evolution."

What is a stronger way of showing evolution than the fossil record? Again, without a fossil record evolution would not even be a concept.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Source?

Your own biologists, had you bothered to do any actual research.

How many fossils have been found? (Page 1) - Fossils - Ask a Biologist Q&A

Of course my answer of 400 million was from the early 80's. Guess I should of done my research and said billions instead.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Eroded rocks. Where are you going with this line of logic or are you just being deliberately obtuse to make yourself feel smarter?

And yet when I told you that the sand was merely weathered sedimentary rock you complained. Apparently your aware also it wasn't a desert when those bones were buried and fossilized as well.

So I might ask where you were going with your line of logic since it leads right back to sedimentary processes? And round and round we went for no reason.