Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[lasthero]

While this is a fascinating topic, klute, the more we talk about it, the more I realize we're getting off topic. Can you address Rick's OP?

 

[klutedavid]

Canis familiaris is the domestic dog. Canis lupis is the wolf. Dogs are very recently evolved from wolves. So yes. But keep in mind, the short face of this crocodile isn't remotely the biggest difference. Notice the limbs are set for an upright posture, not a sprawling one. Notice the teeth are adapted to eating plants. The difference between dogs and wolves is much, much less than the differences between modern crocodiles and this ancient one. Some consider wolves and dogs to be one species. No one with any understanding of anatomy would consider these two crocodiles to be the same species.

Hello Barbarian.

Thanks for considering my replies, will reply tomorrow.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Of course. If we would find the layers out of order, where no folding had occured, there you'd have falsified it.

According to my source, there was no evidence of a geological overthrust. It wasn't very hard to find references such as:

The Glarus Overthrust Near Schwanden, Switzerland Permian - Jurassic - Eocene
supposed to be Eocene - Jurassic - Permian
21 miles long. An overthrust is assumed because the fossils are out of place

Mythen Peak The Alps Cretaceous over Eocene 200 million - 60 million
Older rock allegedly pushed all the way from africa

Matterhorn The Alps Eocene - Triassic - Jurassic - Cretaceous
supposed to be Triassic - Jurassic - Cretaceous - Eocene
Alleged to have been thrust 60 miles

There are also issues of polystrate fossils: "tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, four or more sections of rock"

Furthermore, Mt. St. Helens (rather God) gave us an example of what could happen in a matter of hours under the right cataclysmic conditions: [attached] So, your nice photo (it's pretty cool) does not really present any "evidence" one way or another for or against the geologic column.

Rather than examine these observations and conclude that the geo. column is falsifiable, you will likely explain them away, and we will get nowhere because it is not a matter of science (by the way, no one associated with the evolutionary side of the thread has defined "science"), but of philosophy - worldviews.

The evidence is there. We are all looking at the SAME things. The evolutionary geologic column can be falsified, but it is being held on to as religious dogma.

(Barbarian suggests that one provide evidence that the same sea shells are in all strata)

My emphasis was on what the evolutionary explanation was for having marine fossils in all of the strata. I corrected my statement twice now, are you going to latch on to that in an attempt to discredit me, make me look bad?

Of course we see a steady progression, but we have fossil shells at the lower levels and at the top of the strata. In a creation model, the flood could have deposited these marine fossils as well. Why is the evolution story the only possibility?

Let's take cephalopods. The first known one was pretty much like a limpet. Then we see ammonites, nautilids, squid, and eventually octopi, appearing over time, as they became more complex.

In the flood model, this makes sense: shells couldn't move very fast; octopi could get away for a time and made it up higher. No problem in a flood model. Just as plausible as any evolutionary presentation of millions of years of micro changes - which we do not observe.

What about the common bat or the pterosours which appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitional forms prior?

Sources:
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2221
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/fossilgroups/pterosaurs/fossil record.html

According to evolutionary theory, life forms all have a common ancestor. How could these have just appeared without transitions according to evolutionary theory? Still does not falsify the geologic column? Still does not demonstrate that the evolutionary geo. column could be / is in error?

Or, in your thinking it only shows incompleteness? Either way, it should not be taught with such dogma in textbooks, don't you think? Or, at the very least, other possibilities examined?

"Lower" is not a scientific term. But as you see, complexity increased for cephalopods. However, an increase in complexity is not a necessary requirement for evolution. It can just as easily simplify and make an organism less complex than ancestors.

Oh, okay, so we're all scientists here? If I don't speak with your exact vernacular you cannot understand me? . . . My meaning was the lower levels of the strata. More distractions?

Increase in complexity seemed to be Darwin's idea. Has evolution changed? Let me ask again, what exactly is your definition of evolution?

The relict populations are of species and genera unknown in the fossil record. Over time, coelacanths evolved to larger size and a change in life from mostly small, freshwater species, to deep ocean organisms. The ones today would die in the environment of those early coelacanths. Evolution changed them to something rather different.

Typical explaining away of the observations. Yet, all kinds of literature presents these and more as living fossils. Shall we just dismiss them all in order to prevent the geologic column from being falsified?

No, that's not right. Think about it. If a line of coelacanths happened to survive and evolve to become deepwater marine fish, while all the earlier species went extinct, that says nothing about the geologic column.

Of course it does. It shows that creatures thought to be extinct by the so-called geologic column were in fact not. Why didn't these other "species" as you say show up after 65 million years ago in the column?

Living fossils destroy the geologic column as a "scientific" reference of how it "had to have happened." If the geologic column is wrong about all of these living fossils, it cannot be the "definitive example" of how life progressed on earth. I was under the impression that in science, a hypothesis is proposed and either verified or falsified. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.

You've been misled about that. "Uniformitarian" does not mean what you seem to think it means. The geologists who proposed it, did not mean that all processes were gradual and at the same speed. They cited all sorts of catastrophic events. It's just that there's no physically possible way to make the Grand Canyon into a catastrophic event.

Of course they did. The point was, that everything is as it has always been, as is in the topic of the evolutionary geo. column.

"Uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’s geologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change."

http://global.britannica.com/science/uniformitarianism

"Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

The other points you raised have already been addressed within the body of this reply as far as I can recall. I gotta go. Will try to visit again soon.

But, I am still looking for our working definition of "evolution" and of "science." Kinda hard to continue without rules. We can't keep changing definitions. RickG, maybe you can define these as I indicated in my first reply to your question?

Also, if you, or RickG, or others, will not concede that the geologic column has anomalies that can falsify it, we are just going to be going around in circles. In other words, if you cannot admit that the geologic column has flaws, and is not a perfect representation of what geologists find, then I don't see the need in progressing further.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are forgetting, Jfrsmth, that evolution was, ironically, born out of the attempts of 19-century scientists who went out to explore nature in the express hopes of proving the flood theory. H9wever, when they examined the hared evidence, the flood theory didn't work out. If you have questions why, then you should read the literature, go over their finds. The other problem I have with your posts is that, frankly, you seem to be playing at being some sort of scientist yourself. You are definitely not. I'm a very picky, choosy kind of guy. I fist to look to see what credentials a speaker has , and if he or she has none, then I simply throw their material in the wastebasket. Hence, I do not take seriously anything you have said here. It appears to be just the world of some amateur trying to get in over his head and play professional and outgun everyone in mainstream science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are forgetting, Jfrsmth, that evolution was, ironically, born out of the attempts of 19-century scientists who went out to explore nature in the express hopes of proving the flood theory. H9wever, when they examined the hared evidence, the flood theory didn't work out.

And I'm glad too.

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

 

[Armoured]

Hello Armoured.

Family Delphinidae, ocean dolphins.

Super order Selachii, sharks.

The difference between your two examples is extreme.

Entirely different creatures.

Yet you're the one making "well it just looks like a..." statements.

 

[Jfrsmth]

You are forgetting, Jfrsmth, that evolution was, ironically, born out of the attempts of 19-century scientists who went out to explore nature in the express hopes of proving the flood theory.

Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686), considered the father of modern geology, whose "laws" or "principles" are still taught as required learning in geology classes was a Young Earth Creationist. He saw God's hand clearly in the geology.

Evolution appears to be more born out of man's desire to reject God, and live a life independent of Him; hence, "naturalistic" and "materialistic" beginnings and progression:

Psalm 2:1-3 "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."

If you have questions why, then you should read the literature, go over their finds.

I am asking clarifying questions. Is this not a forum? Didn't RickG ask a question? Do you have anything to add other than some kind of emotional reaction to my replies?

The other problem I have with your posts is that, frankly, you seem to be playing at being some sort of scientist yourself. You are definitely not. I'm a very picky, choosy kind of guy. I fist to look to see what credentials a speaker has , and if he or she has none, then I simply throw their material in the wastebasket. Hence, I do not take seriously anything you have said here. It appears to be just the world of some amateur trying to get in over his head and play professional and outgun everyone in mainstream science.

Oh, wow, you just demonstrated what I often encounter from people who do not want to examine the data. I do not play or pretend to be anything. I am what I am. I read, I learn, I think critically, I have an education, and earned degrees; done my own original multiple researches in the field of education and have been published, praise God; completed studies in theology & Christian apologetics, and occasionally speak on Creation-education in churches, schools, and universities. I try to take my time and provide, clear, well-thought-out responses. You may want to try it after your latest comment.

Is it necessary to have to bring that here to this thread / forum? Can't we have an adult, mature, reasonable discussion of the data without getting emotionally charged?

Why do you feel the need to knock me? . . . So, why have a discussion board if we shouldn't share ideas because we are not evolutionary or other "scientists"? Why don't we all just go home?

Your comment: "...I simply throw their material in the wastebasket" pretty much says it all. That is exactly what I would expect to read from a closed mind (not to mention, go after the author instead of consider the the data). So, because I am not a scientist, I am unable to discern the science? It is published so that we may know. God gave me a mind to think and to use and I'm using it. What an odd way of thinking you have. This is all senseless according to you if no one here is a scientist. So, does that exclude us from reading what scientists observe and report? What is that?

"I'm a very picky, choosy kind of guy." Well, if you don't like what I have to say, then just click on "ignore" me. That way, you can pick and choose the data you want to read and reject the data that you don't want to read.

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh, AV1611, so you are glad the Flood theory didn't work out. Gee, I didn't realize you were a supporter of evolution. What changed your mind?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, AV1611, so you are glad the Flood theory didn't work out.

The Flood theory can take a hike.

Their biggest mistake is calling it a "theory."

 

[RickG]

So, what is your definition of science?

I don't have a definition nor do I care to look one up, it was (retired) my profession. I have an M.S. in Physical Earth Science and some 30 years as a research chemist. Do you have a background or experience in any of the physical sciences?

Do you believe the geologic column devised by evolutionary philosophers is an accurate representation of what is seen in geology;

The geologic column was not devised by evolutionary philosophers or evolution anything. What is seen in the geologic column and the processes involved in its formation is observed and well documented and understood.

that these fossils are layered in the exact way throughout the proposed millions of years?

The distribution of fossils in the geologic column is not proposed, it is what is physically found.

 

[RickG]

Hello Barbarian.

Here is a question for you.

Can a bull dog be regarded as a separate species to the gray wolf species?

Would you please read post # 105 before posting again. This is not a thread as to what evolution is or is not or valid or invalid. Thank you.

 

[RickG]

The complexity issue was nullified by the fact that complexity is
revealed as infinite at each new level discovered. The complexity
theory/myth has been debunked.

And citations from the scientific literature showing this is are forthcoming?

 

[AV1611VET]

And citations from the scientific literature showing this is are forthcoming?

Appealing to written authority, are you?

 

[RickG]

According to my source, there was no evidence of a geological overthrust. It wasn't very hard to find references such as:

The Glarus Overthrust Near Schwanden, Switzerland Permian - Jurassic - Eocene
supposed to be Eocene - Jurassic - Permian
21 miles long. An overthrust is assumed because the fossils are out of place

I don't know your source but it is clearly a misrepresentation of facts. What do you say we respect what is asked of us in the OP and use science. Here's a paper describing the Glarus Overthurst in detail with emphasis describing fluid flow along the fault line.

http://www2.ggl.ulaval.ca/personnel/medef/resumes/Glarus.pdf

Mythen Peak The Alps Cretaceous over Eocene 200 million - 60 million
Older rock allegedly pushed all the way from africa

The formation of the Alps and the tectonic processed involved in their formation is well understood. The fact that we can actually trace the movement and collision of the African Plate with the Eurasian Plate and its timeline demonstrates this.

There are also issues of polystrate fossils: "tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, four or more sections of rock"

Again, I don't know your source for such erroneous information, but it surely is not from any scientific source because the term 'polystrate' is not even a geologic term. The correct term is 'in situ' and there are many examples of fossilized tree trunks that can be seen in layered strata. However, what one needs to realize is that the age of those layers are of the same age and are a result of either multiple eolian or alluvial events.[/QUOTE]

Now, lets get back on topic. Explain the distribution of the fossil record without evolution. How did they get distributed in the manner in which we find them?

 

[RickG]

Well, so far still no scientific description or explanation of how we have the fossil record throughout the geologic column of sedimentary strata that we observe, excluding evolution as the source.

Anyone?

 

[Hieronymus]

The fossil record is distributed throughout earth's sedimentary strata from the oldest and simplest life forms progressively becoming more and more complex and diversified with respect to time, environmental conditions and extinction events in such a manner as to suggest evolution according to the mainstream scientific community.

That's just naturalistic interpretation, which has many problems (which they don't tell you)

In this thread I am issuing a specific challenge.

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

Allright, no problem.
God created life, which through procreation filled the earth.
Then there was a huge flood, and now we have dried mud layers with dead animals and plants in it.

Bye.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian shouts:
Hi-yo Gish, Awaaayy!
And we begin to gallop...

According to my source, there was no evidence of a geological overthrust.

Overthrust:

Folding:

Recumbent folding will easily put strata out of temporal order.

The Franklin Mountains at El Paso have a great deal of deformation. Learn about it here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1298/report.pdf

There are also issues of polystrate fossils: "tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, four or more sections of rock"

Some of them are forming a few miles from my house, where a dam caused trees to be submerged. If the process continues for a few decades, and the area is not again eroded, there will eventually be polystrate fossils. What did you think that means?

Furthermore, Mt. St. Helens (rather God) gave us an example of what could happen in a matter of hours under the right cataclysmic conditions: [attached]

Been there:

There are no hairpin turns in any of the gullies, and because it's soft sediment, the gully walls collapse when they get over a few meters high. So explain to us how a sudden flood produced hairpin turns and vertical walls hundreds of meters high in soft sediment.

So, your nice photo (it's pretty cool) does not really present any "evidence" one way or another for or against the geologic column.

And now, you know better. Those are called "entrenched meanders" and they only happen when a very old (and therefore meandering) river bed is uplifted. It then is trapped in the meanders,and can only cut deeper and deeper into the rock.

Would you like to see the evidence for that? As you now understand, those stories they've been telling you aren't supportable by evidence.

The evidence is there. We are all looking at the SAME things. The evolutionary geologic column can be falsified,

Of course it's falsible. Out of order strata where it can be shown that no folding or overthrusts took place.

But so far, no such thing.

My emphasis was on what the evolutionary explanation was for having marine fossils in all of the strata. I corrected my statement twice now, are you going to latch on to that in an attempt to discredit me, make me look bad?

The point is, no one considers it remarkable that there would be oceans on the Earth in all eras. Why would that matter?

Of course we see a steady progression, but we have fossil shells at the lower levels and at the top of the strata. In a creation model, the flood could have deposited these marine fossils as well. Why is the evolution story the only possibility?

Because the sorting of species in the strata make it clear that they evolved over time. The most common form, foraminiferans, so clearly show gradual evolution trends, that even Stephen Gould, the author of punctuated equillibrium pointed them out as an example of gradual evolution.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/50/21224.full

In the flood model, this makes sense: shells couldn't move very fast; octopi could get away for a time and made it up higher.

That idea would have coral reefs being able to move faster than sponges and shrimp. I don't think so.

No problem in a flood model.

Mobile coral reef is a problem. Trust me on this.

What about the common bat or the pterosours which appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitional forms prior?

You've been misled about that, too...

Image: Royal Ontario Museum
As you can see at right, the fossil is astonishingly well preserved. It comes from deposits that date to about 52.5 million years ago, a time when many mammalian groups were expanding, possibly in response to the environmental changes associated with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The species has been named Onychonycteris finneyi, meaning "clawed bat" and honoring its discoverer, Bonnie Finney.


The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.


The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. The authors argue that the configuration of its limbs, combined with the claws, suggests that it would be powerful climber, able to easily scramble around trees when not flying.


The fossil's teeth indicate that Onychonycteris ate insects, but its ear is probably too small to support echolocation. This supports the "flight first" model of bat evolution, and suggests that it probably hunted visually. Unfortunately, the eye sockets of the sample aren't well preserved, so that remains conjecture. Beyond this one bit of damage, however, the find is stunning for what it tells us about the gradual evolution of the traits that have made the bats the exceptional mammals that they are.

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/science.media/ancientBat.jpg

The anatomical data places pterosaurs in the protosaurs, a group of lightly-built archosaurs. One of the later ones, Sharovipteryx, was a primitive glider:

Early true pterosaurs were clumsy fliers, with a long tail that functioned like the tail of a kite. They were stable in flight because of that, but were less manuverable. Later pterosaurs depended on large brains to control inherently unstable but manuverable bodies.

One of the dangers of basing your religion on what humans don't know, is that we learn more over time. When I was young, there were no transitional whales, turtles, bats, pterosaurs, etc. But time moves on.

According to evolutionary theory, life forms all have a common ancestor.

The first evidence for that came from Linnaeus, who discovered that all living things fit nicely into a family tree. Such a nested hierarchy only works in cases of common descent, although he didn't realize it at the time. Later, genetics, transitional fossils, embryology, and other data confirmed it.

How could these have just appeared without transitions according to evolutionary theory?

Easy. There were transitionals after all.

Still does not falsify the geologic column?

Since it actually occurs intact in a number of places on Earth, it would be pretty hard to refute reality. It's surprising that all eras would have survived so long, but it did happen.

Or, in your thinking it only shows incompleteness?

See above. Completeness.

Either way, it should not be taught with such dogma in textbooks, don't you think?

Dogma is creationism. Evidence is science.

Or, at the very least, other possibilities examined?

So far, nothing else works.

Increase in complexity seemed to be Darwin's idea.

You've been misled about that. While Darwin did point out cases of increased complexity, he also described how natural selection could make an organism more simple.

The idea of de-evolution is based at least partly on the presumption that "evolution" requires some sort of purposeful direction towards "increasing complexity". Modern evolutionary theory, beginning with Darwin at least, poses no such presumption and the concept of evolutionary change is independent of either any increase in complexity of organisms sharing a gene pool, or any decrease, such as in vestigiality or in loss of genes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

Has evolution changed?

Not like that. You've been misled again.

Let me ask again, what exactly is your definition of evolution?

Maybe it would be good to write it down this time. "Change in allele frequency in a population over time."

(Barbarian notes that there are no known species hundreds of millions of years old)

Typical explaining away of the observations.

As you learned, observations of supposed "living fossils" show them to be very much different than the ancient ones. You now realize that Coelacanths today are so different they aren't even in the same genus as any fossil ones.

Think about it. If a line of coelacanths happened to survive and evolve to become deepwater marine fish, while all the earlier species went extinct, that says nothing about the geologic column.

Of course it does. It shows that creatures thought to be extinct by the so-called geologic column

Geologic column doesn't say anything about extinction. As you learned, we turn up new information in the fossil record almost monthly. And Darwin realized this, predicting the vast array of transitional forms we have now. More will turn up. Remember when I told you it was a bad idea to base your faith on what we don't know?

If the geologic column is wrong about all of these living fossils, it cannot be the "definitive example" of how life progressed on earth.

It isn't. Only one part of the evidence.

I was under the impression that in science, a hypothesis is proposed and either verified or falsified.

Yep. So finding the entire assemblage in several different places pretty much nailed it. Reality is tough to argue against.

But, I am still looking for our working definition of "evolution" and of "science."

Hope you wrote it down, this time. Remember "change in allele frequency of a population over time."

 

[RickG]

That's just naturalistic interpretation, which has many problems (which they don't tell you).

Really? Without a Gish Gallop, just what was it that they withheld from me in graduate school?

 

[Hieronymus]

Really? Without a Gish Gallop, just what was it that they withheld from me in graduate school?

Many things.

 

[RickG]

RickG does that all the time.

Oh! In other words I expressed in the OP specifically what I was looking for and wanted to discuss.

He ask questions seeking only answers that he wants rather than seeking the truth

I am seeking the truth.