Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Sounds like an interesting idea, 'Explain the fossil record' without using the theory of evolution.

For starters, may I ask you for a definition of the word 'species', so that we are both on the same page.

Hi klutedaive, welcome to the thread. I am pleased to have your participation. I don't have an interpretation of the word species. I follow the standard biological classification and taxonomic ranking; thus Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. However, I don't see how that has anything to do with what I am asking with respect to the fossil record, but proceed.

 

[Butterfly99]

Why would anyone want to do this for you? How about you do it yourself? My wife makes those kinds of demands on me. "Please, do this but make sure you do it my way and no other way but the way I would do it."

Well I assumed he asked this cause he wants us to think critically. My teachers do this sort of thing all the time. I think it's called the Socratic Method.

 

[paul becke]

Have you never heard of the Cambrian Explosion, Rick ? That alone destroys the bizarre notion you have that the fossil record is conclusive evidence of evolution. It's quite the opposite. There are zero transitional fossils indicating anything a crucial as changes in body parts.

You have the gall to talk to insist on scientific rebuttals, yet nothing about evolution can be empirically tested. It's all historical conjecture - as it happens on the basis of risible inferences.

Read this and weep (Also comment no 1) :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinism-all-but-useless-among-real-scientists/

 

[Michael]

There are zero transitional fossils indicating anything a crucial as changes in body parts.

Even if we assume that your statement is true, there's actually laboratory evidence to support major body part changes from small genetic changes.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

You have the gall to talk to insist on scientific rebuttals, yet nothing about evolution can be empirically tested. It's all historical conjecture - as it happens on the basis of risible inferences.

Read this and weep (Also comment no 1) :

Actually, that HOX gene experiment at UCSD demonstrates that your statement is actually false. We can and routinely do empirically justify microevotionary processes and even macroevolutionary processes enjoy empirical support in the lab.

Keep in mind however that this thread is specifically set aside to for YEC to demonstrate scientifically that something other than evolution is responsible for the fossil record.

 

[RickG]

Have you never heard of the Cambrian Explosion, Rick ? That alone destroys the bizarre notion you have that the fossil record is conclusive evidence of evolution. It's quite the opposite. There are zero transitional fossils indicating anything a crucial as changes in body parts.

Welcome to the thread paul, if you would please, take a bit of time and review the OP as to what I am asking. This is not a thread about disproving evolution. Its purpose is to explain the fossil record without evolution. That is why do we have specific fossils only in specific places. How did they get there without evolution? Do you understand what I am asking? I am not asking anyone to either prove or disprove evolution.

You have the gall to talk to insist on scientific rebuttals, yet nothing about evolution can be empirically tested. It's all historical conjecture - as it happens on the basis of risible inferences.

Calm down paul, this is the science section of the CF where science is supposed to discussed.

Blessings.

 

[klutedavid]

Hi klutedaive, welcome to the thread. I am pleased to have your participation. I don't have an interpretation of the word species. I follow the standard biological classification and taxonomic ranking; thus Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. However, I don't see how that has anything to do with what I am asking with respect to the fossil record, but proceed.

Hello Rick.

Appreciate your reply.

You said the following.

I don't have an interpretation of the word species. I follow the standard biological
classification and taxonomic ranking; thus Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class,
Order, Family, Genus, and Species. However, I don't see how that has anything to do
with what I am asking with respect to the fossil record, but proceed.

I was somewhat surprised by your reply Rick, I am not requesting an interpretation
of the word 'species', rather a precise scientific definition of the word 'species'.

In order to use the term 'species' in any conversation Rick, we must have a precise
definition of this word. Otherwise there may arise a misunderstanding between
us, concerning say the observed species in the fossil record.

For example Rick, you might see an increase in a given number of species, within
a Genus in the fossil record. While I may not identify that increase in the number
of species in that same Genus. We need a uniform definition of the word 'species'!

 

[Butterfly99]

Have you never heard of the Cambrian Explosion, Rick ? That alone destroys the bizarre notion you have that the fossil record is conclusive evidence of evolution. It's quite the opposite. There are zero transitional fossils indicating anything a crucial as changes in body parts.

You have the gall to talk to insist on scientific rebuttals, yet nothing about evolution can be empirically tested. It's all historical conjecture - as it happens on the basis of risible inferences.

Read this and weep (Also comment no 1) :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinism-all-but-useless-among-real-scientists/

Do you have any legit sources to back up what you've said? I mean one that you could use if you were going to write an academic paper at a college or something.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Appreciate your reply.

You said the following.

I was somewhat surprised by your reply Rick, I am not requesting an interpretation
of the word 'species', rather a precise scientific definition of the word 'species'.

In order to use the term 'species' in any conversation Rick, we must have a precise
definition of this word. Otherwise there may arise a misunderstanding between
us, concerning say the observed species in the fossil record.

For example Rick, you might see an increase in a given number of species, within
a Genus in the fossil record. While I may not identify that increase in the number
of species in that same Genus. We need a uniform definition of the word 'species'!

Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding, I see you want something very precise and that is quite difficult to do as there are several independent factors that can vary definitions. I guess the best I can do with that is to pull out one of my old Paleontology textbooks and use their basic definition. It says Biologists use two definitions or concepts to recognize species: one based primarily on morphology--form, size and proportions--and the other based on distribution and potential for interbreeding. It then goes on for several pages spelling out the particulars. With respect to paleontology, i.e. fossils; they say "A paleontologist must often decide whether a collection of fossils contains only a single species of a particular genus, or two or more species". And it continues with quite a bit of elaboration on that. I guess my point is that there is not one standard specific definition.

Having said that, species or even genera have nothing to do with what I am asking for in the thread. I gather you may be gravitating toward what constitutes a transitional fossil. If that is the case, transitional fossils are completely irrelevant for what is being asked in the OP. The thread is not how life evolves or evolved. The point of the thread is; how did the fossils we find in sedimentary strata get there? If not by evolution, what 'scientific' principle and/or evidence shows something different. Thus, if nothing evolved, should we not find fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata? The fact is we do not, so how did they get there?

 

[USincognito]

edit - nevermind. I see this was addressed by the mods.

 

[Hoghead1]

I looked at your source, "Uncommon Descent," and all I found was a lot of inflammatory rhetoric against the scientific community and no real scientific evidence to back anything in creation science. It is not a credible source in my book. Let's see you go to a solid peer-reviewed scientific journal and find one article backing creation science.

 

[Hoghead1]

Paul, you say there are zero transitional fossils, but that is not what science says. Do you know more about it than the scientists do?

 

[RickG]

Paul, you say there are zero transitional fossils, but that is not what science says. Do you know more about it than the scientists do?

Transitional fossils are totally irrelevant to this thread. The idea here is not to prove or disprove evolution, rather explain the fossil record we have with scientific information and facts without evolution. Just trying to keep the thread on track, thank you for your participation.

 

[Edmond Smith]

Well, I'm no scientist either. I'm an engineer..been through enough science classes to be one...lol.

I don't sit here and claim to be an expert on this either. But I do know how to read. That much is true.

There's a real nice article on sea anemone tracks that may interest you.

Here: http://www.icr.org/article/5288

It's way too long to copy. But it's pretty interesting.

 

[RickG]

Well, I'm no scientist either. I'm an engineer..been through enough science classes to be one...lol.

I don't sit here and claim to be an expert on this either. But I do know how to read. That much is true.

There's a real nice article on sea anemone tracks that may interest you.

Here: http://www.icr.org/article/5288

It's way too long to copy. But it's pretty interesting.

Hello Edmond, thank you for your participation. Whether evolution is true or false is not exactly the topic of this thread. Rather, what I am wanting to do is have people present scientific evidence and explanations that can explain the geologic fossil record by means other than evolution. In other words, how did those fossils get where they are in the geologic column? As to the link you provided, I did read it but it does not explain how fossils got where they are nor did it really provide any science, mostly opinion. I look forward to your contributions.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, I'm no scientist either. I'm an engineer..been through enough science classes to be one...lol.

I don't sit here and claim to be an expert on this either. But I do know how to read. That much is true.

There's a real nice article on sea anemone tracks that may interest you.

Here: http://www.icr.org/article/5288

It's way too long to copy. But it's pretty interesting.

As an engineer check over the numbers and vague qualifying terms proposed in that article.

For organisms proposed to be over 560 million years old a discrepancy of 5 million years is not a major shock to an evolutionary timeline.

In addition the tracks and markings are noted to be "similar" to those left by known species of anemone.

Another important issue is that aside the how rare fossils from that era are due to extreme age, many animals from that family don't have hard bony parts and are still quite capable of locomotion. This means it is possible to find impressions and tracks, but not their actual physical remains.

EDIT: (Sorry for derail).

 

[RickG]

As an engineer check over the numbers and vague qualifying terms proposed in that article.

For organisms proposed to be over 560 million years old a discrepancy of 5 million years is not a major shock to an evolutionary timeline.

In addition the tracks and markings are noted to be "similar" to those left by known species of anemone.

Another important issue is that aside the how rare fossils from that era are due to extreme age, many animals from that family don't have hard bony parts and are still quite capable of locomotion. This means it is possible to find impressions and tracks, but not their actual physical remains.

EDIT: (Sorry for derail).

No problem, and good response. In fact citing a timeline of the fossil does gravitate in the direction of the topic. I just don't want to get into a debate over specifics of evolution.

 

[Michael]

No problem, and good response. In fact citing a timeline of the fossil does gravitate in the direction of the topic. I just don't want to get into a debate over specifics of evolution.

Well, in fairness, it's not technically a derail. The author does eventually "explain" why he believes that the data cited in the article is consistent with creationism:

The evidence may not fit the evolutionary story, but it does not conflict with biblical history. Ediacaran deposits like the one the tracks were found in can be thought of as remains from the pre-Flood ocean floor. Though in many places it would have been ripped up, reworked, and re-deposited by the great Flood, it appears that some of it was covered over and preserved by flood-borne sediments. Most often, this material lies far beneath vast fossil-bearing flood deposits, but it crops up in a few places around the globe.

It may not be the strongest argument I've heard, but it's not the worst one I've heard either.

 

[pshun2404]

Even if we assume that your statement is true, there's actually laboratory evidence to support major body part changes from small genetic changes.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mchox.htm





Actually, that HOX gene experiment at UCSD demonstrates that your statement is actually false. We can and routinely do empirically justify microevotionary processes and even macroevolutionary processes enjoy empirical support in the lab.

Keep in mind however that this thread is specifically set aside to for YEC to demonstrate scientifically that something other than evolution is responsible for the fossil record.

Two things. I have read the work regarding effecting the Hox gene and looked at the work they did in the lab and in fact they failed to actually do this in their lab...what they found was if this gene is effected it effects the development and placement (or the lack thereof) of body parts. But as far as I can tell these remain consistent with that particular creature for the rest of its life but that does not necessitate they will be inherited (unless the mutated Hox is also inherited over and over which is fine but all we have is an altered variety of that same creature).

The neat picture on your link where they say

"

this is what their experiments show us. But that is a misnomer. An interpretation of the evidence that is preempted by the preconceived hypothesis. They showed NO SUCH THING in their lab

(see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6874/abs/nature716.html)

...the work was good and very interesting but their conclusion was assumptive as best, and in fact messing with this gene would more likely cause very unpleasant results for our crustacean friend who likely would NEVER turn into a fly (even a little bit at a time).

 

[pshun2404]

Sorry but I must say there is too much to sum it up but to begin one has to understand what we are saying in this OP.

You say using only "scientific evidence" and in my dealings and conversations I find SOME only accept certain criteria as acceptable to their definition...they want only the work and assumptive conclusionism of scientists who believe in abiogenesis, that believe in the un-demonstrated transmutation of one creature into another, which must be supported or reported ONLY in what they consider acceptable "peer reviewed" Journals (which have proven to be prejudiced rejecting articles that could indicate design and authors they know to support that perspective...and have been proven to continually be finding frauds and hoaxes and only catching some others have gotten through an had their influence). Then as one poster asked there are different understandings of "species" (for example a taxonomist and cladist would differ) and even though we know that speciation has only proved to produce variety in the same creature "scientists" still claim it as a cause of "evolution" all the while meaning the transmutation of one creature into another (which has never actually been proven but inferred as likely from certain evidences and then interpreted to fit this model). And then there is the question as to what one means when they say "evolution", And oh yes let us not forget the rejection of any data collected in years past (with which it is claimed that is too old and we know so much more now....)

No, there is no answer to your OP because the hook is baited...it all comes down to looking at what we have and drawing conclusions (the human factor) and in this some differ (there are theistic evolutionists most of whom are scientists, Creationists who are scientists, Darwinians, the modern variations of Darwin, Punctuated Equilibriumists, Catastrophe theorists, and more...ever look into pre-coded equilibrium theory?)

There is more potential problems in the question than answers that can be given...I see new creatures arising fully formed wherein some share structural or functional similarity to me that does not necessitate relationship or one becoming the other, and so on...I would say the best scientific evidence for these two points is just look at whats there minus the story that's told to explain it and viola...first there are no multicellular creatures and then there is a whole array, then fish appear, and so on down the line...but why must we assume one became the other? And Nature forbid if we suggest intention or purpose in their becoming...

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Wow, three pages in and not a single YEC has given a coherent answer. Good job phrasing the question precisely enough to weed out unintelligent and uneducated answers RickG! The silence in here speaks volumes.