Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[sjastro]

No, it turns out he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, and I have no shame on saying that openly.

Saying "Didn't they make it sound like it was discovered through conventional evolution models, when in truth, the Inuit (?) Indians were talking about them all the time?

Even eating them for breakfast?"

Was entirely disingenuous on his part because it blatantly makes it sound like the animal in question was still alive when paleontologists claimed to have discovered it (in his world), when in fact the entire process was basically they did discover the fossil, and as they wanted a name for it, the native Inuit groups went and asked if they could call it this particular name.
The name in question.... Tiktaalik, which is an Inuktitut word meaning "burbot", a freshwater fish related to true cod.

The diets of various peoples can be determined by the middens they left behind.
The eating habits of Australian Aboriginals from 20,000 years ago is well known from their middens.
The Inuits also left middens and their is no evidence of Tiktaalik being on the menu.

You know very well it is a pointless exercise to present this refutation to AV.

 

[The Barbarian]

He's talking about Tiktaalik in that last example, which is an Inuktitut word meaning "burbot", a freshwater fish related to true cod. Which in his mind means that the Inuit people were going around eating the Devonian creatures for their meals in the modern day.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The diets of various peoples can be determined by the middens they left behind.
The eating habits of Australian Aboriginals from 20,000 years ago is well known from their middens.
The Inuits also left middens and their is no evidence of Tiktaalik being on the menu.

You know very well it is a pointless exercise to present this refutation to AV.

It's hard to leave a midden of something that died out millions of years before you could it.
What AV was saying... ah hell, just look at the post above this one since I'm on my phone right now.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not hardly.

Now they call it "speciation" -- which is about as vague as translucent glass.

Speciation is reproductive isolation. As Darwin pointed out, this means that if evolution is true, we'd see populations in all sorts of transitional stages, as well as new species. Which is what we see.

Macroevolution is one genus to another.

You're confused again:

Macroevolution​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

If you don't use scientific terms as scientists use them, you'll be constantly in error.

And before you say anything -- yes, I know, you guys define "genus" as anything but "kind."

"Kind"is a religious term. For example, the Bible puts birds and bats in the same kind. Because "kind" is a religion-based functional category, not a biological one.

Then when someone gives a clear-cut definition of "kind," using the Online Etymology Dictionary and a host of online dictionaries, it gets naysaid.

And it gets naysaid so they can win arguments against creationists.

You're just trying to use it in the wrong context. It works perfectly well for functional categories (animals that fly). But scientifically, it's useless.

I fail to understand why you and other posters even bother to respond.

He's very useful in illuminating YEC thinking and why it leads them so far astray.

 

[sjastro]

It's hard to leave a midden of something that died out millions of years before you could it.
What AV was saying... ah hell, just look at the post above this one since I'm on my phone right now.

Conversely species which were found in Australian Aboriginal middens are extinct today.
These include the Procoptodon which became extinct 46,000 - 47,000 years ago.

​

The Genyronis became extinct 47,000 years ago.

​

The Diprotodon became extinct 46,000 years ago.

​

These megafauna extinctions illustrate there were multiple evolutionary pressures in operation.
(1) Climate change during the late Pleistocene (~40,000 - ~50,000 years ago leading to aridification of large areas of the Australian continent).
(2) Hunted by humans who entered Australia ~65,000 years ago.
(3) Large scale destruction of their habitats by the early humans who used fire sick farming.

 

[AV1611VET]

A lot of YECs erroneously cite coelacanths, but no species from the fossil record is alive today.

That's the one, Barbarian.

Thanks for the info.

I couldn't think of its name.

From AI Overview:

A living coelacanth was found, which was a significant zoological discovery. It was initially discovered off the coast of South Africa in 1938, and later another species was found off the coast of Indonesia in 1998. These discoveries were remarkable because coelacanths were previously thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it turns out he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, and I have no shame on saying that openly.

Either that, or I got the two animal stories mixed.

Let me know when I'm supposed to report to the firing squad.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind"is a religious term.

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

GENUS

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin" (from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups).

From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

KIND, noun

1. Race; genus; generic class; as in mankind or humankind. In technical language, kind answers to genus.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

That's very nice that you added a YEC as approving of these transitional organism but it didn't seem to sway him enough to make him be a believer in macroevolution. He still claims to be a YEC.

Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1342937X16303112

"The fossil is supposed as an aquatic precursor of dry land lycophytes." Supposed is a word used when someone isn't really sure.

"Due to the compression and high degree of coalification, no anatomical data are available to prove unambiguously the affinity to vascular plants but medial strands in microphylls indicate thicker tissue of a single midrib unknown in algae." That word unambiguously shows there is doubt in the analysis.

"All direct and indirect evidences convincingly indicate the fossil to be an aquatic precursor of dry-land microphyllous plants, i.e. lycophytes." Convincingly but not absolutely, so this is open up to debate.

Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982224006699

"Our understanding of the evolutionary origin of Chordata, one of the most disparate and ecologically significant animal phyla, is hindered by a lack of unambiguous stem-group relatives." Right off the bat, there seems to be trouble with this data.

"The identification of these structures underpins a new anatomical model of Pikaia that shows that this fossil was previously interpreted upside down." Here's the trouble with the data. We are looking at it upside down.

"Pikaia gracilens Walcott, 19115 from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia (Wuliuan Stage, Miaolingian Series, c. 508 Ma) represents the first potential Cambrian chordate to be recognized.2,3,6 Nonetheless, the established model of Pikaia’s anatomy3 shows conspicuous discrepancies with living chordates3,7,8: no clearly preserved dorsal nerve cord; no evident ventral digestive tract posterior to the foregut, despite the latter’s recurrent preservation among 114 described specimens3,7; an internal, cuticularized, rod-like “dorsal organ”3,7,8; a continuous “ventral blood vessel” unlike the branched main ventral vessels of amphioxus and vertebrates7; ventrally oriented “anterior appendages” lacking counterparts among chordate gills3; and myomere boundaries with apices pointing in the direction opposite those of amphioxus and vertebrates.3,7,8 Given these discrepancies and a lack of unambiguous chordate synapomorphies, several authors have suggested alternative placements among protostomes.9,10,11" Didn't really follow this part too well but there's those words again, "lack of unambiguous". Sounds like this is on shaky ground possible.

Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids)

Our earliest primate ancestors rapidly spread after dinosaur extinction - Berkeley News

The ancestor of all primates — including humans and apes — likely emerged by the Late Cretaceous and lived alongside large dinosaurs

news.berkeley.edu

This is one of the big ones here, going from the small furry mammal to giving us the apes and humans (the other big on is going from the amphibian-like creature to the small furry mammal)(I don't think they've found that one yet, have they?)(the amniote?).

"The small, furry ancestors of all primates — a group that includes humans and other apes — were already taking to the trees a mere 100,000 years after the mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs and most other terrestrial animals, according to a new analysis of fossil teeth in the collections of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP)." Is this based on DNA samples from the teeth that connects us with them or is it just the teeth and jawbones? How many of these samples have the scientists found? Did these guys just eye the teeth up and said, "yep, this is the connection between small mammals and humans"? Seems a little farfetched to me and I'm sure many others.

If this is what macroevolution is based on, it seems very flimsy. Really only by seeing these take place in real time would convince me that that is how it happened. And I'll find that out only when I pass away from this life.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's very nice that you added a YEC as approving of these transitional organism but it didn't seem to sway him enough to make him be a believer in macroevolution. He still claims to be a YEC.

Yes. He admits that there is very good evidence for evolution, but he prefers his interpretation of the Bible. He's an honest and knowledgeable YEC. They do exist.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.
Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

"All direct and indirect evidences convincingly indicate the fossil to be an aquatic precursor of dry-land microphyllous plants, i.e. lycophytes." Convincingly but not absolutely, so this is open up to debate.

Yeah, science is never about proof. The evidence is convincing. The evidence for atoms as actual objects is similarly convincing.

Given these discrepancies and a lack of unambiguous chordate synapomorphies, several authors have suggested alternative placements among protostomes.9,10,11" Didn't really follow this part too well but there's those words again, "lack of unambiguous". Sounds like this is on shaky ground possible.

More specimens have been found with more details. And as your author suggests, the animal, when turned what was assumed to be "upside down", suddenly has all the features of a chordate, our own phylum:
However, recent analysis of Pikaia fossils by another team of scientists, published June 11 in the journal Current Biology, has upended this view and all other earlier studies about Pikaia.

According to the researchers, earlier anatomical interpretations positioned the animal wrong side up. The so-called dorsal organ was actually located in the belly and was Pikaia’s gut. The presumed blood vessel was a dorsal nerve cord, a feature associated with the animal group known as chordates, in the phylum Chordata.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/24/science/pikaia-fossil-chordates-backbone-scn

A very simple and basic chordate, but a chordate nonetheless.

This is one of the big ones here, going from the small furry mammal to giving us the apes and humans

In mammals, teeth are the best way to classify. So this little mammal had primate teeth. It's not the only primate known from this era:

Here we describe the most complete dentally associated skeleton yet recovered for a mixodectid, specifically Mixodectes pungens from the early Paleocene of the San Juan Basin, New Mexico. A partial skull with all the teeth erupted and associated axial skeleton, forelimbs, and hind limbs, with epiphyses fused, indicate that it was a mature adult. Results from cladistic analyses incorporating new data robustly support primatomorphan (Primates + Dermoptera) affinities of Mixodectidae, but relationships within Euarchonta are less clear, with Mixodectes recovered as a stem primatomorphan, stem dermopteran, or stem primate. Analyses of postcrania suggest that M. pungens was a relatively large (~ 1.3 kg), claw-climbing arborealist capable of frequent clinging on large diameter vertical supports. With teeth suggesting an omnivorous diet that included leaves, M. pungens occupied a unique ecological niche in the early Paleocene of North America that differed from contemporary, arboreal plesiadapiforms that were smaller and more frugivorous. Euarchontans were thus a more diverse radiation in the early Cenozoic than previously appreciated.

(the other big on is going from the amphibian-like creature to the small furry mammal)

Lots of transitioinals there. What stage between a stem amphibian and a mammal do you think is missing? I can't think of one. The big jump is from amphibians to amniotes (reptiles, dinosaur/birds, and mammals) Would you like me to show you that?

(I don't think they've found that one yet, have they?)(the amniote?).

Westlothiana Lizziae is transitional between amphibians and amniotes.

Meet ‘Lizzie’, a 345 million year old fossil | National Museums Scotland

In the 1980s, a very important fossil was discovered in Scotland. Named Westlothiana, the fossil got its nickname 'Lizzie' because it looked so lizard-like

www.nms.ac.uk

Is this based on DNA samples from the teeth that connects us with them or is it just the teeth and jawbones? How many of these samples have the scientists found? Did these guys just eye the teeth up and said, "yep, this is the connection between small mammals and humans"? Seems a little farfetched to me and I'm sure many others.

See above. We have a rather complete skeleton of a very early primate. Just where a transitional primate should be. Now, you are probably surprised that all these transitionals exist. But even more impressive, is the fact that there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No Cambrian mammals. No insects with bones, not mammals with feathers.

It takes a huge amount of faith in man's belief systems to deny all of this evidence. But YECs have a great deal of faith in man's interpretation of God and His word.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Kind"is a religious term.

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

From the Bible, birds and bats are listed as the same kind. "Kind" is a religious term, a functional classification, not a taxonomic level. Your revision of the term makes sense only if you think that birds and bats comprise one genus. Again, the internal contradictions in your beliefs undercut your argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

A lot of YECs erroneously cite coelacanths, but no species from the fossil record is alive today.

That's the one, Barbarian.

But, as you learned, the coelacanths scientists were talking about became extinct millions of years ago. None of the species alive today are in the fossil record.

These discoveries were remarkable because coelacanths were previously thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

They did. We just weren't aware of some other species of coelacanth that evolved after other genera and families went extinct.

Scientists thought only megasized giraffoids survived. But then when the New World was explored, pronghorn antelopes turned up and then in Central Africa the jungles turned out to be harboring Okapis. Doesn't mean Sivatherium didn't go extinct.

 

[NxNW]

You have said this numerous times, explain then what happened because the whole idea of evolution is man evolved from single celled organism

No, humans evolved from Australopithicus.

(who miraculously put themselves together from non-living material).

Wrong again.

First, single celled organism then multi celled organisms then primitive sealife then amphibians like creatures then small mammals then tree dwelling mammals then primitive hominids then man. That is what every site I go to says about evolution.

That doesn't match with what you wrote above.

 

[NxNW]

Microevolution yes; macroevolution a joke

What is an example of macroevolution?

 

[NxNW]

I just want to leave one more post for those people who question the theory of evolution or anyone curious about evolution but want to know what hasn't been proven yet.

Theories are never proven.

 

[NxNW]

Isn't it obvious - macroevolution, the theory of evolution, darwinism. Alot of scientist put a fit up when schools teach, in addition to evolution, alternate thoughts on the origin of life.

I like how you call them alternate fights and not alternate theories, because these thoughts have no evidence to support them.

If the theory of evolution were absolute fact then we wouldn't have to say there are alternate thoughts on the origin of life but evolution is just a theory (though many scientists defend it like it's the gospel truth on everything.

You're still confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

Plus alot of thoughts on many space topics - dark matter, the galaxy at the furtherest reaches of the universe, dark energy, black holes. Many times scientists make it sound as if these are facts and not theories.

Nobody is claiming that theories are factual.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind"is a religious term.

From the Bible, birds and bats are listed as the same kind. "Kind" is a religious term, a functional classification, not a taxonomic level. Your revision of the term makes sense only if you think that birds and bats comprise one genus. Again, the internal contradictions in your beliefs undercut your argument.

We've been through this before, haven't we?

From a previous post:

Let's be frank here, the Bible does not call a bat a "bird."

It calls it a "fowl."

Academia teaches, however, that all fowl are birds.

Thus Bible haters claim that Leviticus is in error.

But here's what the Bible REALLY SAYS ...

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Notice the first three examples in that passage?

Does academia recognize the eagle as a fowl?

No.

Does academia recognize the ossifrage as a fowl?

No.

Does academia recognize the ospray as a fowl?

No.

Does academia recognize the bat as a fowl?

No.

BUT

Does God recognize them as fowls?

Yes.

Thus it should be painfully obvious that academia needs to change its definition of fowl -- isn't it?

Post 181

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Either that, or I got the two animal stories mixed.

Let me know when I'm supposed to report to the firing squad.

I doubt you got them mixed up.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Conversely species which were found in Australian Aboriginal middens are extinct today.
These include the Procoptodon which became extinct 46,000 - 47,000 years ago.

View attachment 368518
​

The Genyronis became extinct 47,000 years ago.

View attachment 368519
​

The Diprotodon became extinct 46,000 years ago.

View attachment 368520
​

These megafauna extinctions illustrate there were multiple evolutionary pressures in operation.
(1) Climate change during the late Pleistocene (~40,000 - ~50,000 years ago leading to aridification of large areas of the Australian continent).
(2) Hunted by humans who entered Australia ~65,000 years ago.
(3) Large scale destruction of their habitats by the early humans who used fire sick farming.

Yes, but as I said: none of them were from the Devonian!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You know very well it is a pointless exercise to present this refutation to AV.

Also, I know it's pointless to present anything to AV, but it still needs to be done just so there is the hope that something does get through to him, and if it doesn't then it at least shows the lurkers that he is challenged on his views and that his views are decidedly wrong.