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.
Hello Rick.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?
Simple answer Rick, there is irrefutable evidence in this fossil record, of the stasis of lifeExplain the fossil record contained in earth's sedimentary strata without evolution.
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."
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.
That's not how evolution works.
How does it work?
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).
What he tried to say is: Without evolution, the fossil sequence can not be explained.
Still waiting for participation in discussing the topic. Do you have a contribution to the topic?Just out of curiosity, how's this sola scientia thread working out for you guys?
Sure.Explain the fossil record without evolution.
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.
Do I receive any funding grants for further research?
In other words I'm actually enforcing debate rules described by the CF. Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do?
Are you sure that this statement of your is true?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?
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?
Hello Loudmouth.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.
Hello Lasthero.[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.
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?