The fossil record is a physical reality. How did it get there? I have been excluding evolution to provide an opportunity to explain it otherwise. How did it get there?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you have all of this knowledge, why start this thread? I tend to agree with Hieronymus' comments. Is there any room for an alternative here without having it summarily explained away?
Thereby excluding any references made to science. I do not believe Jfrsmth is inventing the quotes with references. What a closed-minded view, and so often repeated in these forums. I don't know why I even try.
More precisely a creationist who has declared that no fact, however well-documented can override his interpretation of the Bible.
You have not yet addressed the topic. Addressing the topic is explaining scientifically how the fossils got where they are. The OP is assuming they did not get there by evolution. So how did they get there without evolution?
Since you and Barbarian have all of this education and knowledge. Why can't we discuss the issue without the set-up?
What set-up? Is the whole idea of talking about science, as per the sub-forum rules, somehow frightening to you?
I would love to listen to your ideas and maybe even learn something. But, you are starting from the assumption that the layers of the geo. column are the result of millions of years of accumulation - a uniformitarian view, while rejecting an alternative view of flood geology and a young earth.
I enjoy science. You guys could teach us something, but your worldview seems to be defaulted to evolution.
Since you and Barbarian have all of this education and knowledge. Why can't we discuss the issue without the set-up?
Actually geologic age is irrelevant with respect to the OP. Nevertheless, there are no assumptions pertaining to the geologic column, the science is solid.I would love to listen to your ideas and maybe even learn something. But, you are starting from the assumption that the layers of the geo. column are the result of millions of years of accumulation - a uniformitarian view, while rejecting an alternative view of flood geology and a young earth.
I enjoy science. You guys could teach us something, but your worldview seems to be defaulted to evolution, when there is evidence that supports that model. Much of what I have been posting along these lines has been dismissed without more in-depth discussion.
Again, there are people on this thread who could contribute a lot to the discussion.
Well, since the geological column all dates as millions of years and there is zero evidence of the Earth being young and there being zero evidence for a global flood forming all of the world's geological layers, then by Occam's Razor, the uniformitarian view must be the correct one.
Sources I have given, have all been rejected, one comment tries to discredit Henry Morris who had a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering, and his observation of the geology of Mount St. Helens. You go after and try to discredit and reject me for stating the published science (go after the messenger instead of the message); you reject the scientists who say otherwise, and you reject the science of it. You call yours science but when I share mine it isn't science. How ridiculous.
Where is this gonna end? Don't you see, this is typical evolutionist behavior?
Anyone else reading this thread, be warned, this is exactly what evolutionists do.
You stated,The genetic code of Canis familiaris is identical to the genetic code of Canis Lupus.
Which means dogs and wolves have the same ancestoral parents.A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a
new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.
The wolf-like canids, the fox-like canids, and the South American canids, including theBarbarian observes: Canis familiaris is the domestic dog.
That's not what the genetics tells us Barbarian, still stumbling over the morphology.The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is a domesticated canid
which has been selectively bred for millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and
physical attributes.[2]
At most 0.2% of mtDNA.Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.
The genetic overlap is due to a common ancestor, boneheads.What's more, the extensive DNA analysis -- published in the latest PLoS Genetics -- found that dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves, regardless of their geographic origin. The genetic overlap seen today between dogs and wolves is likely then due to interbreeding after dog domestication.
All we are interested in is the genetic code of this extinct wolf Barbarian."The common ancestor of dogs and wolves was a large, wolf-like animal that lived between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago," Robert Wayne, co-senior author of the study, told Discovery News. "Based on DNA evidence, it lived in Europe."
http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/dogs-not-as-close-kin-to-wolves-as-thought-140116.htm
I reject the concept of speciation, the DNA is identical, David is now laughing.The process of evolution proposes a speciation which is not evident in the DNA of these
specimens.
Barbarian, 0.2% of mtDNA is the figure, not a few percent.Genetically, they differ from wolves by about as much as we differ from chimpanzees,
a few percent, at most.
But they do establish my initial claim, and refute your erroneous claim.Using the differences in morphology of any Genus is an erroneous methadology.
Genes, however, are very good for this purpose, and as you can see, they don't support your belief.
There it is.
There is evidence supporting a rapid formation of the strata. You are choosing to ignore it. Is it really off-topic? The data I have presented supports a rapid burial of the fossils, and another possible mechanism for the layering we see.
Sources I have given, have all been rejected, one comment tries to discredit Henry Morris who had a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering, and his observation of the geology of Mount St. Helens.
You go after and try to discredit and reject me for stating the published science (go after the messenger instead of the message); you reject the scientists who say otherwise, and you reject the science of it. You call yours science but when I share mine it isn't science. How ridiculous.
Where is this gonna end?
Don't you see, this is typical evolutionist behavior?
Anyone else reading this thread, be warned, this is exactly what evolutionists do.
Are you going to discredit him / this too Barbarian, because "I" wasn't there. That seems to be your reasoning. I am sharing the observations from my own research of the data. Isn't that what we do when we write research papers - cite references?? Don't / Didn't you ever cite references to data that you did not personally attend to?
I already presented Nicolas Steno
and Dr. Morris
That one brought a chuckle. . I thought I was.
Which means dogs and wolves have the same ancestoral parents.
Here is the evidence to support my statement.
The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at
most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence....In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild
relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”
(Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D, 'Molecular evolution of the dog family', theoretical and applied genetics.)
Read that again Barbarian, at most 0.2% of mtDNA, there is no difference between a domestic dog
and a gray wolf.
I need the genetic data of the extinct ancestoral specimen, to verify this speculative claim.
What you will find is the extinct ancestor is a canid with virtually no difference in DNA
to the offspring, whether dog or wolf.
After this, I'm signing off from this thread okay Barbarian, RickG. It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
Flood geology can also interpret the same observed layering:
Hello Barbarian.
Thanks for your reply.
I said,
You stated,
Which means dogs and wolves have the same ancestoral parents.
Here is the evidence to support my statement.
The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at
most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence....In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild
relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”
(Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D, 'Molecular evolution of the dog family', theoretical and applied genetics.)
Read that again Barbarian, at most 0.2% of mtDNA, there is no difference between a domestic dog
and a gray wolf.
I need the genetic data of the extinct ancestoral specimen, to verify this speculative claim.
What you will find is the extinct ancestor is a canid with virtually no difference in DNA
to the offspring, whether dog or wolf.
The wolf-like canids, the fox-like canids, and the South American canids, including the
bush dog are a monophyletic group.
A monophyletic taxon, is one that includes a group of organisms descended from a single
ancestor. Just as human races are all just one monophylectic group, descended from one
ancestor, so are canids. Though you may classify a subspecies of humans due to selective
breeding, I would reject that idea immediately.
The idea that selective breeding is different to a natural breeding is erroneous. The genetic
disposition of the canid is all that matters in the end. We are always talking from the stand
point of Genetics.
That's not what the genetics tells us Barbarian, still stumbling over the morphology.
At most 0.2% of mtDNA.
The genetic overlap is due to a common ancestor, boneheads.
All we are interested in is the genetic code of this extinct wolf Barbarian.
I reject the concept of speciation, the DNA is identical, David is now laughing.
Barbarian, 0.2% of mtDNA is the figure, not a few percent.
But they do establish my initial claim, and refute your erroneous claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?