Cenozoic dinosaurs vs. Cambrian rabbits

[shernren]

It is so true that if we found a dinosaur in the jungles of Africa most evolutonists wouldn't have a problem. We find "living fossils" and that doesn't change their views. There are animals that show no signs of being around for millions of years that are all of a sudden living today! Many of us will see the problem here but evolutionists can be so blinded to the truth that no evidence will ever win them over.

Here is my proof that such a discovery will not jeopardize either evolutionary theory or evolutionary history.

Let us assume that an extant modern species B descended from a previous species A, and the evolutionary process can be divided into a few discrete stages, of which the most recent happened in 1 million years from 5mya to 4mya and the earliest happened in 2 million years from 64mya to 62mya. (The numbers are there for show and to make the example easier to follow.) Assume that the scientific community has until recently assumed that species A is extinct. Now, let us examine the effects of two possible finds:

1. Species A is found alive today.
2. Species B is found in strata laid down 62mya.

1.
Notice I cheated in the example: I didn't tell you when the scientific community assumed that species A had gone extinct. But this is completely proper. Let me explicitly state the evolutionary changes ...

A (64mya) -> A' (62mya)
A' -> A'', A'' -> A''', A''' -> A'''', ... , A(n-1) -> A(n),
A(n) (5mya) -> B (4mya)

when does the presence of A matter? It only matters between 64mya and 62mya. After that, the presence of A has no relevance to the evolutionary process whereas the presence of the more direct ancestors A', A'', ... is necessary for the evolution of B. If A went extinct 61mya, the chain would still have taken place. If A went extinct 30mya, the chain would still have taken place. If A is still extant today, the chain would still have taken place ... because the absence of A is not necessary for A' -> A'' etc.

2.
If this happens evolution is in one big mess. What the diagram now looks like is:

A (64mya) -> A' (62mya) + B (62mya)
A' -> A'', A'' -> A''', A''' -> A'''', ... , A(n-1) -> A(n),
A(n) (5mya) -> B (4mya) [??????????????]

Note that in the previous example the absence of A was not necessary for the presence of B. But here, note that the previous presence of A', A'', A''', ... , A(n) is necessary for the presence of B, according to evolutionary theory. If paleontological evidence shows that contrary to theory B was present before the A(n)s were present, then the theory is in serious doubt, because some other force besides descent with modification from common ancestry is required to explain the presence of B.

Or a concise layman's version:

Just because people are still building and maintaining discontinued vintage cars today, doesn't pose any problem for historians of vintage cars. But if historians were to find remains of a car in a French Neolithic cave then they'd need some serious explanatory skills.

If creationism wants a direct assault on evolution via the fossil record, Cenozoic dinosaurs won't do - they'll need Cambrian rabbits.


Here is the challenge for creationists: demonstrate that if dinosaurs are alive today, it poses an unanswerable problem for

a) evolutionary theory: it proves that the proportion of beneficial alleles in a population does not increase over the generations
and/or
b) evolutionary history: it proves that descent with modification from common descent is insufficient to generate all known biodiversity today.

 

[Mallon]

What shernren is saying is this:

If you evolved before your supposed ancestral stock did, this would pose a major problem for evolution.

If birds evolved before reptiles, this would be a problem for evolution.
If reptiles evolved before amphibians, this would pose a major problem for evolution.
If amphibians evolved before fish, this would pose a major problem for evolution.
If humans evolved before apes, this would pose a major problem for evolution.

 

[shernren]

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes simple words cut it where complex ones don't.

 

[Mallon]

I find it is best to stick to the KISS method when debating with creationists. They're already confused enough as it is.

 

[shernren]

I find it is best to stick to the KISS method when debating with creationists. They're already confused enough as it is.

True, lol. The problem is that creationist thinking is actually quite complex. That's why there's so much more room for exploration in my "scientific myth" thread, really. One fascinating thing is that creationists tend to see scientific conclusions as being rather monolithic, especially in the area of origins. They are quite happy to lump cosmology, paleontology, evolution, molecular biology, and geology under one big "evilutionism!" banner. To them therefore disproving even one small facet of the field disproves the whole works.

That's the cause of the frequent conflation between abiogenesis and evolution.
And that's why creationists love putting forward evidence like the Paluxy tracks and the Ica stones, which even if true wouldn't dent evolution very much (although paleontology would suffer).
As if the "evilutionist conspiracy" is a chain of theories which can be broken at any weakest link.

But my point was not so much that Cambrian rabbits would cause a problem, rather that Cenozoic dinosaurs don't. Could you brandish your KISSing XD skills again and simplify that? XD

 

[Mallon]

But my point was not so much that Cambrian rabbits would cause a problem, rather that Cenozoic dinosaurs don't. Could you brandish your KISSing XD skills again and simplify that? XD

I think you've made the case well enough on your own, to be sure.
But the point needs to be made and remade (it seems) that so-called "living fossils" have never posed a problem to the theory of evolution because:
a) they are never the same species as those found in the fossil record (i.e. the modern coelocanth IS NOT the same species we find in the fossil record -- i.e. it has evolved)
b) speciation does not occur at the same rate between all clades. Coelocanths, tuataras, horseshoe crabs, etc., are still around simply because they have been under little pressure to change by their respective environments.

In any case, I don't even know why we are arguing this since no one has come forward with a single credible shard of evidence for living non-avian dinosaurs (and being a palaeontologist myself, trust me, I would love more than just about anyone else here to see a living dinosaur).

 

[shernren]

In any case, I don't even know why we are arguing this since no one has come forward with a single credible shard of evidence for living non-avian dinosaurs (and being a palaeontologist myself, trust me, I would love more than just about anyone else here to see a living dinosaur).

It came about because of this article which was posted to the Creationists' forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t287...fossilized-femur-of-a-t-rex.html#post23227034

 

[Willtor]

To borrow and expand upon your car example:

Dinosaur = Ford Model T

Rabbit = Honda Civic Hybrid

If you see a brand-spanking new Ford Model T on the road, you do a double take, but it doesn't change your views of the history of cars. If you find plans for a Honda Civic Hybrid dating to 1910, you reevaluate your historical matrix. Eg - You give up on the history of cars you've been watching on the History Channel.