Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[Hoghead1]

Look, Pshun2404, what comes across from your tirade is that you have an undue hatred of mainstream science. You seem to have set yourself as a judge and jury over science, yet you have absolutely no credentials or qualifications to do so. I find that quite arrogant and ignorant. I'll stick with mainstream science any day, because I know it is on the ball, whereas you have absolutely nothing constructive to offer.

 

[klutedavid]

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?

Hello Rick.

Here is what you asked in your opening post.

Explain the fossil record contained in earth's sedimentary strata without evolution.

Simple answer Rick, there is irrefutable evidence in this fossil record, of the stasis of life
forms over an indeterminate period of time. I reject the concept imbedded in the evolutionary
theory of speciation, and therefore also reject the extended classification of a species below
a Genus.

The fossil record found in the sedimentary strata, contains life forms that belong to the
category of Genus, these life forms in the set Genus can undergo extensive changes in
morphology, though the gene pool remains common for all genetic members of any
Genus.

Morphology within a Genus can alter due to the isolation of any group from the general
population. Sometimes the extent of this change in morphology, in the case of say the Genus
Canis can be extreme over time.

What do you think of this so far Rick?

Do I receive any funding grants for further research?

 

[juvenissun]

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."

What he tried to say is: Without evolution, the fossil sequence can not be explained.
My response to him was: With evolution, the fossil sequence still can not be explained.

That is the end of the verbal game.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Deformed baby or even adult is not uncommon. That does not mean evolution is true. It may suggest that evolution is false.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Deformed baby or even adult is not uncommon. That does not mean evolution is true. It may suggest that evolution is false.

That's not how evolution works.

 

[juvenissun]

That's not how evolution works.

How does it work?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How does it work?

Start a separate thread if you want me to talk about it. This thread is about evolution with regards to the fossil record, not solely evolution.

 

[RickG]

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

"View attachment 168581

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, this thread is not about discussing whether evolution is true or false. It is about explaining the fossil record and its distribution throughout the sedimentary strata of the geologic column without evolution. By what means did those fossils get were they are without evolution. Your focus on the topic of this thread and the dispense of discussing evolution will be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity, how's this sola scientia thread working out for you guys?

 

[RickG]

What he tried to say is: Without evolution, the fossil sequence can not be explained.

Please stick to the topic of this thread. Explain the fossil record without evolution. Discussing the processes of whether evolution is valid or not is off topic.

 

[RickG]

Just out of curiosity, how's this sola scientia thread working out for you guys?

Still waiting for participation in discussing the topic. Do you have a contribution to the topic?

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain the fossil record without evolution.

Sure.

God did it.

Line upon line.

Cleanup on aisle five!

If I had a son who had a book case with books, and I went in and dusted it: I would start by taking all the books off the shelf (the Flood), dust the shelf, then put them back in order by their size.

If later, my son said I was being deceptive because of that, I'd say he's got a real problem.

There's your fossil record sans evolution.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Here is what you asked in your opening post.

Simple answer Rick, there is irrefutable evidence in this fossil record, of the stasis of life
forms over an indeterminate period of time. I reject the concept imbedded in the evolutionary
theory of speciation, and therefore also reject the extended classification of a species below
a Genus.

The fossil record found in the sedimentary strata, contains life forms that belong to the
category of Genus, these life forms in the set Genus can undergo extensive changes in
morphology, though the gene pool remains common for all genetic members of any
Genus.

Morphology within a Genus can alter due to the isolation of any group from the general
population. Sometimes the extent of this change in morphology, in the case of say the Genus
Canis can be extreme over time.

What do you think of this so far Rick?

Do I receive any funding grants for further research?[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your response klutedavid. You seem to be the only one seriously trying to discuss the topic of this thread and I appreciate that. However, that is still a direction of evolution and that is now what I'm looking for. For example, we have fossilized lifeforms in all layers of sedimentary strata. But what we don't find is those unique lifeforms in all layers of sedimentary strata. Therefore, Tyrannosaurs are found only in Cretaceous strata. Even though they are dinosaurs, they are not found in either Triassic or Jurassic strata which also contains dinosaurs. And dinosaurs as a whole are only found in strata of the Mesozoic Era (Triassic, Jurassic & Cretaceous Periods). Trilobites are found only in strata of early Cambrian to early Devonian. Mastodons are found only in late Miocene to late Pliocene strata. And of course, there are many many many more examples. What I am asking is, by what means is it that they only appear in those layers of sedimentary strata? How did they get there and only there, and what scientific explanation describes this process? Evolution is certainly one explanation. But I want to explore other ways than evolution using scientific processes, facts and information providing an alternative source.

Do I receive any funding grants for further research?

Well, if we find that alternative route, such grants may be a possibility.

Again, thank you for your participation. Blessings

 

[bhsmte]

In other words I'm actually enforcing debate rules described by the CF. Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do?

You absolutely are in the right to ask folks to stick to the OP. In fact, any reasonable discussion would require this.

With that said, when a focused discussion on a certain topic is threatening to some, they will do what is necessary, to move the discussion away from that focus and muddy the waters.

It is the same thing a defense attorney does, when he is defending a client with enormous amounts of evidence against him. He needs to try and get the jury away from actually focusing on the evidence and introduce confusion into the proceedings.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Rick.

You stated the following in post #78.

For example, we have fossilized lifeforms in all layers of sedimentary strata.
But what we don't find is those unique lifeforms in all layers of sedimentary strata.

Are you sure that this statement of your is true?

Are there no distinct life forms that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

Rick, are there no examples of stasis in the fossil record?

 

[The Barbarian]

Rick writes:
For example, we have fossilized lifeforms in all layers of sedimentary strata.
But what we don't find is those unique lifeforms in all layers of sedimentary strata.

Hello Rick.

You stated the following in post #78.

Are you sure that this statement of your is true?

I can't think of an example of a fossil organism found in all layers.

Are there no distinct life forms that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

Can't think of one. Trilobites changed markedly over time, and they aren't in all strata. Coelacanths today are markedly different from those hundreds of millions of years ago. No modern genus of horseshoe crab is found in the fossil record. And of course, neither of these is found in all strata.

Rick, are there no examples of stasis in the fossil record?

Stasis is very common. Stasis for hundreds of millions of years doesn't seem to have ever happened.

 

[klutedavid]

Stasis for hundreds of millions of years
doesn't seem to have ever happened.

Hello Loudmouth.

Crocodiles have been around for over 230 million years.

There are many fossils of crocodylomorphs from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Crocodilians
have been very conservative, changing their body form very little through their history of
some 230 million years (Bristol University, palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk)

Very little difference between modern crocodiles and the ancient specimens.

 

[lasthero]

[c

Hello Loudmouth.

Crocodiles have been around for over 230 million years.

There are many fossils of crocodylomorphs from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Crocodilians
have been very conservative, changing their body form very little through their history of
some 230 million years (Bristol University, palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk)

Very little difference between modern crocodiles and the ancient specimens.

You mean ancient specimens like this?

Does this look anything like a modern croc to you?

 

[klutedavid]

[c


You mean ancient specimens like this?

Does this look anything like a modern croc to you?

Hello Lasthero.

Where did you get that photo from Lasthero, I swear my dog was chasing one of
those out of our yard the other day. I suspect this fellow is not extinct!

If you do some research on the ancient crocodile family, you will find they are
virtually identical to the present specimens.

 

[lasthero]

v

Your link doesn't go anywhere. Could you link the actual article? I find it odd, since crocodiles are far older than 230 million. This

Hello Lasthero.

Where did you get that photo from Lasthero, I swear my dog was chasing one of
those out of our yard the other day. I suspect this fellow is not extinct!

How about I tell you where I got the photo from when you actually link the article you quoted?

Your dog wasn't chasing anything like that. There's no extant species that resembles xilousuchus.

If you do some research on the ancient crocodile family, you will find they are
virtually identical to the present specimens.

I did. Have you? Because if you did, I don't think you'd make that statement.

Some of the earliest crocodiles were large enough to take on a T Rex. That's not 'virtually identical'.