Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

[Derf]

When we come to realize that these orders are a 1-1 match, the conclusion is that the fossil succession matches DNA because the fossil record is a product of DNA+Time. And if common descent is true, then Adam must have existed in a certain window of time in which the phylogenies align in suggesting that He did.

I would suggest that you try the other viewpoints with as much enthusiasm for their presuppositions, as you exhibit for yours. From all the research I've seen (and I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with it in the last few years as much as I did before), the DNA phylogenies have as much trouble crossing barriers between kinds of animals as the fossil record seems to show. I guess in that way, they are in agreement.

It's like saying that in a baseball game, in the 2nd inning if a team had 5 points, and then in the 8th inning the team had 7 points, then the only conclusion is that some time between the 2nd and 8th inning, they must have had a score of 6. If all ancestral species were reptiles in the carboniferous and mankind exists today (as observed in phylogenies), then Adam would have been between the carboniferous and today. Which post dates death observed in Cambrian Burgess shake species.

This is actually quite a good analogy, because it presumes knowledge of a beginning and an analysis point, it presumes the same players that started the game are still at it (including some that started on the bench), as well as rules of the game--at least that's what a baseball analogy would presume. Maybe you're talking about a different game and you just call it baseball. Your analogy is a good demonstration of the creation of all things on earth and in the heavens at a point in time, and some progression in and out of the game of types of creatures that were in existence from the beginning.

The evolutionary model lacks knowledge of the beginning, it assumes players that weren't in the game (or even on the bench) are now in the game, and the rules change depending on the findings of the spectators.

That's an overly technical answer for a question that most people would never ask. Most people are either YECs or theistic evolutionists, but your question comes from a perspective in between, a position that few people have.

I can assure you that I'm sympathetic to the YEC model, but I'm not sold on all aspects of it. I'm not sympathetic at all to the theistic evolution model, if one could even be imagined, because it presumes that science, which is constantly changing, is correct and Genesis is only correct when it matches up with science--a pretty hard target for an active website today, much more so for a book written 3.5 thousand years ago.

However, the bible has shown itself to be much more stable in its story in other scientific fields, like archeology, surpassing the accuracy of the science itself in predictions. It has at least as much predictive capacity for biology as it does for archeology, and the strength of those predictions isn't waning with time, though science's are (since it is constantly changing).

A quick example is that science predicted that DNA was mostly vestigial or random junk. Now science recognizes that most DNA has function.

There are other examples, but DNA is particularly applicable, since you have an affinity for what it can tell us of the past--you would want your story to be as stable as possible for the predictive power to be useful.

 

[Derf]

Hm? What do you mean?

Maybe I just need practice at explaining. But let's see what you think I said. Maybe you can help me understand what details I need to clarify in.

A modern day amphibian, like a frog, has DNA. And a modern day fish has DNA. And a modern day mammal, like a dog, has DNA.

A dog's DNA is more similar to a frogs than it is to a fishes. Therefore, if phylogenetic trees match, in the fossil record we should see an order if fossils fish>frog>dog. And so we do. The first fish appear in the Cambrian, the first frogs in the carboniferous, and the first dogs (or wolves to be fair) in the late Cenozoic.

Another example, a bear and a camel have DNA more similar to a whale than to a shark. If you look in the fossil record you will find that prehistoric bears and prehistoric camels appear in the fossil record closer together and closer still to whales than they do to sharks.

A whale and a hippo have DNA that is more similar to each other than to a salamander. Wheels and hippos or more specifically ungulates and prehistoric whales appear in the Cenozoic, closer to each other but much further away from the first and 50 ends of the Devonian.



This is what I'm attempting to describe.

I don't need to have DNA of prehistoric species of the fossil record, I can use DNA of animals that exist today to find their morphologic prehistoric counterparts in the earth. And vice versa, I can use fossils and can predict what modern-day species DNA will look like based on the order that fossils are found in the earth.

Feel free to let me know if I can clarify more on that.

I would like to see your predictions on what modern-day species will look like (DNA or morphology, either would be interesting), but only if you've never seen modern-day species will it be worth anything as a confirmation of your model. The old double-blind study idea, right? As it is, it would be difficult for you to somehow forget what modern species look like when you are predicting what modern species will look like.

However, the even better test of your predictive prowess would be to take the first single-celled organism and predict the DNA of humans. I'll wait...

Ok, I won't wait. You can't do it. There's no predictive power from first-life-morphology to modern-DNA according to evolutionary theory. If there were, you would not have proved evolutionary theory, but deistic evolution, perhaps, where God made all life bound up in the DNA of the first creature which then proceeded to give birth to all the other ones over time as God sat back and watched (or ignored--how interesting would it be for God to watch a movie He wrote, when He has a perfect ability to produce what He planned?)

Neither is there predictive power in the evolutionary model from fish to humans or crab apples to crabs. The bible does have predictive power in its creation model. It said, 3500 years ago, that each kind would reproduce after its own kind. And that's what we observe today. Tuna fish give birth to tuna fish. Crab apple trees drop seed and more crab apple trees come up. And while you might think you have a reasonable story that says a hippo eventually gave birth to a whale, that story changes often enough that you would be foolish to bet your life on it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would like to see your predictions on what modern-day species will look like (DNA or morphology, either would be interesting), but only if you've never seen modern-day species will it be worth anything as a confirmation of your model. The old double-blind study idea, right? As it is, it would be difficult for you to somehow forget what modern species look like when you are predicting what modern species will look like.

However, the even better test of your predictive prowess would be to take the first single-celled organism and predict the DNA of humans. I'll wait...

Ok, I won't wait. You can't do it. There's no predictive power from first-life-morphology to modern-DNA according to evolutionary theory. If there were, you would not have proved evolutionary theory, but deistic evolution, perhaps, where God made all life bound up in the DNA of the first creature which then proceeded to give birth to all the other ones over time as God sat back and watched (or ignored--how interesting would it be for God to watch a movie He wrote, when He has a perfect ability to produce what He planned?)

Neither is there predictive power in the evolutionary model from fish to humans or crab apples to crabs. The bible does have predictive power in its creation model. It said, 3500 years ago, that each kind would reproduce after its own kind. And that's what we observe today. Tuna fish give birth to tuna fish. Crab apple trees drop seed and more crab apple trees come up. And while you might think you have a reasonable story that says a hippo eventually gave birth to a whale, that story changes often enough that you would be foolish to bet your life on it.

Shrugs* I feel like you're digressing from the meaning of the synchrony of phylogenetic trees, and you're going on to talk about the future. It's just a completely different topic.

Someone can make a prediction, say, that an impact crater must exist if there is an iridium impact layer, then They can go and investigate and perhaps find a crater deep underground that demonstrates truth in that prediction. But it's a completely different question to ask someone when the next time and asteroid will hit. It's just a separate topic that has no bearing on the first.

I think that by asking me when the next asteroid will hit doesn't really address predictions that can be made based on what currently exists.

So while I think your response is interesting, I don't think it takes away from my earlier conclusions. It just seems like you're changing the topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

And to answer your question, of course I cannot predict the future so I do not know what species will eventually look like. But I do believe that God has a plan and that he has worked through species and has played an integral part in our creation and existence throughout all time. Even now.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would like to see your predictions on what modern-day species will look like (DNA or morphology, either would be interesting), but only if you've never seen modern-day species will it be worth anything as a confirmation of your model. The old double-blind study idea, right? As it is, it would be difficult for you to somehow forget what modern species look like when you are predicting what modern species will look like.

However, the even better test of your predictive prowess would be to take the first single-celled organism and predict the DNA of humans. I'll wait...

Ok, I won't wait. You can't do it. There's no predictive power from first-life-morphology to modern-DNA according to evolutionary theory. If there were, you would not have proved evolutionary theory, but deistic evolution, perhaps, where God made all life bound up in the DNA of the first creature which then proceeded to give birth to all the other ones over time as God sat back and watched (or ignored--how interesting would it be for God to watch a movie He wrote, when He has a perfect ability to produce what He planned?)

Neither is there predictive power in the evolutionary model from fish to humans or crab apples to crabs. The bible does have predictive power in its creation model. It said, 3500 years ago, that each kind would reproduce after its own kind. And that's what we observe today. Tuna fish give birth to tuna fish. Crab apple trees drop seed and more crab apple trees come up. And while you might think you have a reasonable story that says a hippo eventually gave birth to a whale, that story changes often enough that you would be foolish to bet your life on it.

I hope you can understand what I mentioned earlier though. The order in which fossils are found in the earth match the order of DNA based phylogenies in modern day species. This is because the fossil record is a product of DNA change + time.

The reason the data aligns is because common descent is true.

And with that said, we can be confident that Adam lived within the past 2 million years, and animal death has been around far longer. And even if someone didn't accept specific ages of rocks, geologic superposition would demonstrate that death predates Adam none the less.

 

[Derf]

And to answer your question, of course I cannot predict the future so I do not know what species will eventually look like.

But you insinuated that you could, here:

I can use fossils and can predict what modern-day species DNA will look like based on the order that fossils are found in the earth.

If it's truly a prediction, you can do it without using any modern-day DNA, else your prediction is not a prediction, it's merely a restatement of the modern-day data.

But I do believe that God has a plan and that he has worked through species and has played an integral part in our creation and existence throughout all time. Even now.

How would you find out what God's plan is? Besides looking at fossils and DNA, that is. And if you had a reliable source for what God's plan is, could you trust it if it didn't agree with your view of the message of fossils and DNA?

 

[Job 33:6]

But you insinuated that you could, here:

If it's truly a prediction, you can do it without using any modern-day DNA, else your prediction is not a prediction, it's merely a restatement of the modern-day data.


How would you find out what God's plan is? Besides looking at fossils and DNA, that is. And if you had a reliable source for what God's plan is, could you trust it if it didn't agree with your view of the message of fossils and DNA?

What I meant when I said that I could predict what modern day species DNA looks like, Is I meant that I could predict what DNA looks like in species that are alive right now based on the order that fossils are found in the earth. To an extent I suppose that could be extrapolated into the future a little bit, however as time would pass eventually there would be no way to predict ultimately how a genome in any animal would change.

So it's making predictions about the present based on the past, not necessarily making predictions about the future based on the past.

So for example, I'm a geologist I look at rocks and fossils all the time. And I know that amphibious species of fossils are found in Devonian strata [that's when they first appear] and I know that reptile species are found in carboniferous strata [when they first appear], and these rocks are around me and I can look at these rocks and I can confirm that. And I also know that fish are also found in ordovician and Silurian strata [fish appear in the Cambria], also near me that I can look at.

And so because I see an order of fish [Cambrian to Silurian] to amphibian [Devonian] to reptile [carboniferous], I can also tell you without knowing the first thing about genetics that you could take any fish living today on this planet and any amphibian like a salamander living on the planet today, and any reptile on earth living today, and in every case the fish will be genetically more similar to the amphibian than it will be to the reptile.

Again, I can know this based on the order of fossils.

And some people might think that maybe these are just coincidences but it gets very specific when you really get down into the weeds and really start unpacking the science.

I gave examples above involving whales and bears and dogs etc., You can literally take any groupings of fossils in the fossil record, find their modern counterpart today and you will find with 100% certainty that the order observed in the fossil record is the exact same order you will find in genetic similarity between species.

I gave another example, whales and hippos. You wouldn't look at them and expect their DNA to be similar, but their fossils are actually found very close to one another, it's temporarily in the late Cenozoic of the fossil record. So without even looking at their genomes, I can tell you that the DNA of a whale is very similar to the DNA of a hippo, much more so than any reptile or amphibian or fish on earth, and even more so than the vast majority of other mammals too. I'm willing to wager, without even looking, that a whale's DNA is more similar to a hippo's than it is to an ape. And I can already tell you with 100% certainty that this is true without even looking at their genomes. Because I know that the fossil succession aligns with genetic phylogeny and because I know the fossil succession, I therefore know genetics.

And scientists are well familiar with this, amongst those of us who work with these kinds of sciences. And the reason for it is simply that the fossil succession, the order of fossils itself is a product of descent with modification of DNA through time.

It's essentially genetics through time recorded in the order of fossils in the Earth.

And so what I'm doing is, I'm not predicting the future, I'm not predicting what animals will one day become. But rather what I'm doing is I'm able to predict the present day based on the past and I'm able to predict the past based on the present day. Because remember, I can make predictions about what exists today. I can predict what's on the other side of a door that exists today. Predictions don't have to involve the future.

And the reverse works as well. You can look for example at the DNA between a whale and a hippo, and you can make a prediction about where fossils will be in the Earth. And 100% of the time you will be right. You could fight day and night, but you won't find an exception to this rule.

In some cases there are species that simply have no fossils in the fossil record, but I wouldn't consider this a refutation. Because for every place that there are fossils, the rule applies. Particularly for trillions of fossils post-ediacaran I'll say. The rule doesn't really help for Precambrian species like microbes and eukaryotes and prokaryotes, because they don't really have fossils because they're just cells.

 

[Job 33:6]

What I meant when I said that I could predict what modern day species DNA looks like, Is I meant that I could predict what DNA looks like in species that are alive right now based on the order that fossils are found in the earth. To an extent I suppose that could be extrapolated into the future a little bit, however as time would pass eventually there would be no way to predict ultimately how a genome in any animal would change.

So it's making predictions about the present based on the past, not necessarily making predictions about the future based on the past.

So for example, I'm a geologist I look at rocks and fossils all the time. And I know that amphibious species of fossils are found in Devonian strata and I know that reptile species are found in carboniferous strata, and these rocks are around me and I can look at these rocks and I can confirm that. And I also know that fish are also found in ordovician and Silurian strata, also near me that I can look at.

And so because I see an order of fish to amphibian to reptile, or Silurian to Devonian to carboniferous, I can also tell you without knowing the first thing about genetics that you could take any fish living today on this planet and any amphibian like a salamander living on the planet today, and any reptile on earth living today, and in every case the fish will be genetically more similar to the amphibian and it will be to the reptile.

Again, I can know this based on the order of fossils.

And some people might think that maybe these are just coincidences but it gets very specific when you really get down into the weeds and really start picking it open.

I gave examples above involving whales and bears and dogs etc., You can literally take any groupings of fossils in the fossil record, find their modern counterpart today and you will find with 100% certainty that the order observed in the fossil record is the exact same order you will find in genetic similarity between species.

I gave another example, whales and hippos. You wouldn't look at them and expect their DNA to be similar, but their fossils are actually found very close to one another, it's temporarily in the late Cenozoic of the fossil record. So without even looking at their genomes, I can tell you that the DNA of a whale is very similar to the DNA of a hippo, much more so than any reptile or amphibian or fish on earth, and even more so than the vast majority of other mammals too. I'm willing to wager, without even looking, that a whale's DNA is more similar to a hippo's than it is to an ape. And I can already tell you with 100% certainty that this is true without even looking at their genomes. Because I know that the fossil succession aligns with genetic phylogeny and because I know the fossil succession, I therefore know genetics.

And scientists are well familiar with this, amongst those of us who work with these kinds of sciences. And the reason for it is simply that the fossil succession, the order of fossils itself is a product of descent with modification of DNA through time.

It's essentially genetics through time recorded in the order of fossils in the Earth.

And so what I'm doing is, I'm not predicting the future, I'm not predicting what animals will one day become. But rather what I'm doing is I'm able to predict the present day based on the past and I'm able to predict the past based on the present day. Because remember, I can make predictions about what exists today. I can predict what's on the other side of a door that exists today. Predictions don't have to involve the future.

And the reverse works as well. You can look for example at the DNA between a whale and a hippo, and you can make a prediction about where fossils will be in the Earth. And 100% of the time you will be right. You could fight day and night, but you won't find an exception to this rule.

In some cases there are species that simply have no fossils in the fossil record, but I wouldn't consider this a refutation. Because for every place that there are fossils, the rule applies. Particularly for trillions of fossils post-ediacaran I'll say. The rule doesn't really help for Precambrian species like microbes and eukaryotes and prokaryotes, because they don't really have fossils because they're just cells.

And if anyone doesn't believe what I'm saying, I'd be happy to do the test right here and right now. Pick 3 animals, preferably a genus and not something too exotic that would be easy to research, and we can pull up their genome sequences and we can pull up research on where their fossils are and we can do it right now. Just name any 3. It could even all be within the same family and we could still do it.

 

[Derf]

What I meant when I said that I could predict what modern day species DNA looks like, Is I meant that I could predict what DNA looks like in species that are alive right now based on the order that fossils are found in the earth. To an extent I suppose that could be extrapolated into the future a little bit, however as time would pass eventually there would be no way to predict ultimately how a genome in any animal would change.

So it's making predictions about the present based on the past, not necessarily making predictions about the future based on the past.

I'll disagree with you here. It's making predictions about the present based on the present. Fossils weren't fossils in the past when they were alive, and you aren't investigating the actual animals. So assumptions must arise based on what you think you know about the present and the past, which is all present knowledge (though it gets stale over time).

Thus, it is ripe for confirmation bias.

I gave examples above involving whales and bears and dogs etc., You can literally take any groupings of fossils in the fossil record, find their modern counterpart today and you will find with 100% certainty that the order observed in the fossil record is the exact same order you will find in genetic similarity between species.

I gave another example, whales and hippos. You wouldn't look at them and expect their DNA to be similar, but their fossils are actually found very close to one another, it's temporarily in the late Cenozoic of the fossil record. So without even looking at their genomes, I can tell you that the DNA of a whale is very similar to the DNA of a hippo, much more so than any reptile or amphibian or fish on earth, and even more so than the vast majority of other mammals too. I'm willing to wager, without even looking, that a whale's DNA is more similar to a hippo's than it is to an ape. And I can already tell you with 100% certainty that this is true without even looking at their genomes. Because I know that the fossil succession aligns with genetic phylogeny and because I know the fossil succession, I therefore know genetics.

And scientists are well familiar with this, amongst those of us who work with these kinds of sciences. And the reason for it is simply that the fossil succession, the order of fossils itself is a product of descent with modification of DNA through time.

It's essentially genetics through time recorded in the order of fossils in the Earth.

And so what I'm doing is, I'm not predicting the future, I'm not predicting what animals will one day become. But rather what I'm doing is I'm able to predict the present day based on the past and I'm able to predict the past based on the present day. Because remember, I can make predictions about what exists today. I can predict what's on the other side of a door that exists today. Predictions don't have to involve the future.

And the reverse works as well. You can look for example at the DNA between a whale and a hippo, and you can make a prediction about where fossils will be in the Earth. And 100% of the time you will be right. You could fight day and night, but you won't find an exception to this rule.

In some cases there are species that simply have no fossils in the fossil record, but I wouldn't consider this a refutation. Because for every place that there are fossils, the rule applies. Particularly for trillions of fossils post-ediacaran I'll say. The rule doesn't really help for Precambrian species like microbes and eukaryotes and prokaryotes, because they don't really have fossils because they're just cells.

If I understand what you are saying, then mammals appear about the same time and are similar in morphology and DNA. Since hippos and whales are mammals, they are merely subsets of the mammal class, and therefore would be expected to be found first in the same fossil layers.

How many millions of years of error do you allow yourself?

And how far back in biological science could you have made the same claim? For instance, could you have said in 1975 that Whales and Hippos would have similar first fossil locations? Or is this only because of new discoveries?

And if anyone doesn't believe what I'm saying, I'd be happy to do the test right here and right now. Pick 3 animals, preferably a genus and not something too exotic that would be easy to research, and we can pull up their genome sequences and we can pull up research on where their fossils are and we can do it right now. Just name any 3. It could even all be within the same family and we could still do it.

Grass
Allosaurs
Coelacanths

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll disagree with you here. It's making predictions about the present based on the present. Fossils weren't fossils in the past when they were alive, and you aren't investigating the actual animals. So assumptions must arise based on what you think you know about the present and the past, which is all present knowledge (though it gets stale over time).

Huh? Not sure what you mean here. But yes, I agree that all fossilized animals were once alive.

If I understand what you are saying, then mammals appear about the same time and are similar in morphology and DNA. Since hippos and whales are mammals, they are merely subsets of the mammal class, and therefore would be expected to be found first in the same fossil layers.

Yes, sort of. So mammals are present in triassic layers and layers throughout the Cenozoic. But more specifically, not all mammals are found in all Cenozoic layers. Whales and even toed ungulates are found more in shallow Cenozoic layers, while mammals like moles and mice and things like this, are present not just in the shallower cenozoic but also on the deeper as well. But to clarify, neither are found in Paleozoic. Moles are present in the Mesozoic but not the Paleozoic. So moles appear before hippos and whales (fossilized proto species) and so mice will have DNA more similar to reptiles than whales or hippos will.

How many millions of years of error do you allow yourself?

Um, this is kind of an odd question. I'll say none and let's see where my answer goes haha.

And how far back in biological science could you have made the same claim? For instance, could you have said in 1975 that Whales and Hippos would have similar first fossil locations? Or is this only because of new discoveries?

Hm. Um. Well as long as fossils are known to exist, a claim specifically about those fossils can be made. So basically, for as long as there ever has been known to be even toed ungulate fossils, that piece of the puzzle is then known.

But it's also fair to say that to confirm it with other fields, or to confirm the fossil succession with other fields, we need those other fields to be in order too. And the human genome project and this explosion with DNA sequencing really is only been around I would say since maybe the 70s? It's all relatively knew. Being able to look at the DNA of animals with cost effective expediency, is a relatively recent technological development.

So I would guess that if I were a geologist in the 60s, I probably wouldnt have the same level of evidence to work with. But as long as the DNA is sequenced and as long as the fossils have been discovered, the claim can be made.

I'm happy you understand me, or at least appear to. Quite the relief. But we still have a ways to go if you're willing to continue this walk down the rabbit hole with me.

Grass
Allosaurs
Coelacanths

Awesome. Give me some time to gather research. But I'll tell you now what I anticipate finding. Coelacanth are fish. Lobe finned fish appear in the Devonian, but as you know they still of course live today. Allosaurus would be a reptile. Reptiles appear in the carboniferous. And grass would be a plant, plants like algae go back into the Proterozoic.

So if common descent were true, according to the fossil record, a fishes DNA should be more similar to a blade of grasses DNA, than an a reptiles DNA is to a blade of grass' DNA.

Let's see what I can find

 

[Derf]

You don’t have to respond to this right away—spend your time on your three animals. But I wanted to address it for now.

Huh? Not sure what you mean here. But yes, I agree that all fossilized animals were once alive.

But the information you have about those animals is current information. You don’t have the actual information about when those animals lived or what happened between when they died and now. So it’s only a present interpretation of present data about a past animal or event.

The Bible presents past information about past events, and we can read it in the present. So if the Genesis stories are accurately recorded, and we’re eyewitness accounts, they are likely to be more accurate than present day interpretations of present day data of past events.

 

[Derf]

Yes, sort of. So mammals are present in triassic layers and layers throughout the Cenozoic. But more specifically, not all mammals are found in all Cenozoic layers. Whales and even toed ungulates are found more in shallow Cenozoic layers, while mammals like moles and mice and things like this, are present not just in the shallower cenozoic but also on the deeper as well. But to clarify, neither are found in Paleozoic. Moles are present in the Mesozoic but not the Paleozoic. So moles appear before hippos and whales (fossilized proto species) and so mice will have DNA more similar to reptiles than whales or hippos will.



Um, this is kind of an odd question. I'll say none and let's see where my answer goes haha.



Hm. Um. Well as long as fossils are known to exist, a claim specifically about those fossils can be made. So basically, for as long as there ever has been known to be even toed ungulate fossils, that piece of the puzzle is then known.

But it's also fair to say that to confirm it with other fields, or to confirm the fossil succession with other fields, we need those other fields to be in order too. And the human genome project and this explosion with DNA sequencing really is only been around I would say since maybe the 70s? It's all relatively knew. Being able to look at the DNA of animals with cost effective expediency, is a relatively recent technological development.

So I would guess that if I were a geologist in the 60s, I probably wouldnt have the same level of evidence to work with. But as long as the DNA is sequenced and as long as the fossils have been discovered, the claim can be made.

I'm happy you understand me, or at least appear to. Quite the relief. But we still have a ways to go if you're willing to continue this walk down the rabbit hole with me.



Awesome. Give me some time to gather research. But I'll tell you now what I anticipate finding. Coelacanth are fish. Lobe finned fish appear in the Devonian, but as you know they still of course live today. Allosaurus would be a reptile. Reptiles appear in the carboniferous. And grass would be a plant, plants like algae go back into the Proterozoic.

So if common descent were true, according to the fossil record, a fishes DNA should be more similar to a blade of grasses DNA, than an a reptiles DNA is to a blade of grass' DNA.

Let's see what I can find

I guess I’m a little disappointed that you are substituting “plant” and “algae” for grass and “reptile” for “allosaur”, but we’ll see what you get. It makes it seem like a shell game with such imprecise categories.

 

[Job 33:6]

I guess I’m a little disappointed that you are substituting “plant” and “algae” for grass and “reptile” for “allosaur”, but we’ll see what you get. It makes it seem like a shell game with such imprecise categories.

Interesting thought.

Well if it makes you feel better, consider the following:

An allosaurus is a theropod (two legged). It's sauriscian (it has hip bones similar to birds), it's a dinosaur (walks on land, legs beneath it's abdomen as opposed to on its sides like an alligator). Logically speaking, there's no reason we would find allosaurus in the Paleozoic before any other archosaurs appeared because allosaurs (allosauruses?) Are all just derived archosaurs.

And archosaurs, theropods, sauriscian dinosaurs, etc. All appear in the Mesozoic. So even if I changed what I called allosaurus, it would still post-date Devonian ceolacanths by a long shot.

So if you ever found an allosaurus in the Permian, carboniferous, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician or Cambrian, you would disprove common descent (and you would disprove the theory of evolution too).

Something worth considering. There are many possible ways that my ideas could be proven wrong. So it's just good to keep that in mind when thinking about the fossil record.

And ceolacanths, in simple terms, they're just lobe finned fish. So I think it's fair to give them a Devonian spot where their lobe finned traits first appear.

Ceolacanth is a more basal genus. If common descent were true, that would mean that allosaurus descended from something like a ceolacanth. So if we ever found an allosaurus before ceolacanth [basal and first appearance of them], it would logically break the whole system.

So now we think of grass. Plants have their own fossil succession. It goes something like this:
Non-vascular plants (Silurian)>vascular plants(Devonian)>seeded plants (Triassic)> flowering plants (cretaceous). Generally speaking.

They're different from animals down to a cellular level. Their fossils are vastly different. So if common descent were true (notice how I'm operating under the assumption that i don't know if it is or is not true), the "crown group" that unites plants and animals would have to be incredibly far back in time.

In paleontology, I couldn't call a blade of grass a dinosaur. I'd have to call it a derived plant of some kind, then I'd have to look at where plants first appear or where traits that make plants plants, first appear. What makes plants plants, what makes grass different from fish and reptiles, and when does that trait first appear in the fossil record? The answer is it's a cellular trait of the precambrian.

So I think you're right to feel disappointed in my "shell game". Sorry if things seem more complicated than I originally suggested they were. Maybe it's good that I'm not a teacher. But I'd like to think that the above should be generally understandable. If grass and fish held a common ancestor, it would have to be logically incredibly old (because the only traits they share are on a cellular level meaning it would drag us into the precambrian where the fossil record basically disappears to a microscopic world with the exception of things like algae and stromatolite fossils). If allosaurus and ceolacanths had a common ancestor, it would have to land somewhere around the early Devonian or late Silurian (the time wrist bones first appeared or somewhere in this area where their shared traits are found).

This is all just a brain exercise. But ultimately, the fossil cladistic order is what it is. Sorry if it's complicated. An allosaurus before the Mesozoic would disprove all of this and a ceolacanth in or before the early to mid Silurian would disprove all of the above as well.

Logically there's just only so much I can do to wiggle out of this conclusion of plant>fish>reptile. Therefore modern day reptiles must be genetically more similar to ceolacanth than to grass. Based on the order of fossils.

Now I have to run, but once I get more free time I'll return.

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually one sec.

It took me a bit to figure out how to use this genome database to compare DNA between species. I'm making progress. I have the animals taken care of. Just have to get my grass genome.

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually one sec.

It took me a bit to figure out how to use this genome database to compare DNA between species. I'm making progress. I have the animals taken care of. Just have to get my grass genome.

I was hoping to make my own tree through blast with plants and animals on it. I made a bunch quite easily with fish and reptiles, but I couldn't figure out how to get plants on as well. Probably because they're just so significantly different from animals. Would probably need a biologist to make a table.

Anyway, so here are one of my trees produced with use of blast. It's an online tool, it's free to use. It basically organizes genetic sequences based on % difference. So you look up a gene, copy it's DNA sequence in, and the system pulls from a database of hundreds of other sequenced genomes and it located other organisms with the same gene and then organized them based on differences (differences by mutations according to common descent).

So here is what I did here in the table above.
First I pulled up my own table based on a gene found in ceolacanths. It's a gene by the name of MDM2.

Looks like the gene makes some kind of binding protein.
MTBP MDM2 binding protein [Latimeria chalumnae (coelacanth)] - Gene - NCBI

And if you look closely to my table, pardon my crummy cell phone picture, but you can see that crocodiles and turtles and reptiles are all derived from fish. Or they are genetically further along this "tree" of relatedness. Fish are basal, reptiles are crown. And actually, if you look further still, caecilians are amphibians, so according to the figure above you have fish>amphibian>reptile. Which is exactly what we find in the fossil record with ceolacanth (early Devonian), tetrapod amphibians (mid to late Devonian), and reptiles (carboniferous).

And if youll notice, this is exactly what we see in the fossil record. Fish are basal in the Cambrian through Devonian, tetrapods through the mid to late Devonian and reptiles later arise in the carboniferous and dinosaurs later still in the Mesozoic, including allosaurus.

So in order to get to reptiles, you basically have to go "through" fish first. Morphologically you have to (because tetrapods are derived fish, if you haven't read Neil shubins book: "your inner fish" it's a fantastic read and goes into plenty of detail on this), anatomically you have to ( lobe finned fish have wrist bones), paleontologically can you have to (I gave a description above of how lobe finned fish are locked in the Devonian while all dinosaurs, theropods and allosaurs don't arrive until the Mesozoic (so temporally you have to "go through" fish to get to reptiles).

And to confirm this genetically, I just searched random genes of ceolacanth in ncbi, and it doesn't have to be ceolacanth, you can look up sequences for a large number of animals and you will find the same thing over and over again. Look up any gene in any fish and assuming reptiles also have that gene, you will see fish on the left, reptiles on the right. Fish basal, reptiles crown. Just like in the fossil record.


MTBP MDM2 binding protein [Latimeria chalumnae (coelacanth)] - Gene - NCBI

Once you search your gene, scroll down to where it says "mRNA and Protein(s)" then you just select the"XM [followed by various numbers]. Then that will pull up the DNA sequence. Copy that sequence, take if over to the blast site.

Nucleotide BLAST: Search nucleotide databases using a nucleotide query

Nucleotide BLAST: Search nucleotide databases using a nucleotide query

Paste your sequence into the box at the top.

Then you select "BLAST" at the bottom and it pulls up the phylogeny, then you just select how you want to view it.

Then you will see "distance tree of results". Click that.

Then you go to "tools" and "layout" and you can pick whether you want a slanted cladogram or a fancy radial one.

So anyway, we could do this a million times. I just did it with maybe a dozen genes (it doesn't take long when you get used to it) and every single time I kept getting the same phylogeny like in my picture above.

You get your Latimeria node that's more basal on the left, that precedes all reptiles.

Now I'll move onto my observations involving plants.

Now, plants are much more genetically different. They're just way off in left field so I had trouble getting them on my table. I could pull up trees of plants and trees of animals but unfortunately those pesky biologists didn't make this site with the goal of laymen non biologists making giant trees of life but rather they seem to use it for work purposes. So it's not the most use friendly and I couldn't find a way through. Maybe if I kept trying and I will try more, just need a couple more days. But anyway...

I found tables that others have made with other software so I just copied and pasted them here:

The first is with respect to gene sequencing from a scientific article, the second I just pulled from brittanica, the third is from a published article, the fourth I just found through Google, the 5th is published and presented through talk origins (that dang talk origins always causing trouble), and the last image is from a published article:

And, no matter where I looked. In scientific articles and their respective figures, for any field, I continually found that plants are further down on more basal nodes, including phylogenetic trees of genetics as depicted in figures above.

And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to keep pulling this apart. But without question, I'm 110% certain that in the case of allosaurus, ceolacanth, grass, or reptile, fish, plant order, that the fossil succession matches all of the above.

No matter what field of study, we can't get to reptiles without passing through fish. We have to pass through fish basal nodes to get to reptile crown nodes. And we have to pass through eukarya basal nodes to get to plant and animal crown groups. Both in genetics and in paleontology.

Anyway, hope this makes sense!

In order for paleontology not to match up with the above genetic sequences, we would have to find an allosaurus or reptile in rocks predating ceolacanth of the mid Devonian or so, or we would need to find ceolacanth (or any fish) or any reptile in rocks predating the mid Proterozoic or so. But both of the above, I can't imagine will ever happen. But there are plenty of Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian rocks around to check for dinosaurs, and anyone can test this for themselves. Just download the rockD app for free to see the geology around you and go hunting. But I look at rocks of these ages pretty regularly and while I do find many fossils in them, I have never found any reptiles (hence why I've ultimately become convinced that common descent is accurate).

If you would like to look at 3 more organisms, feel free to paste them. I enjoyed testing blast and don't mind looking deeper. Though it would probably be simpler just to stick with all animals.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Derf

I'll do another one because it interests me.

Turkeys (Thanksgiving).
Horses and,
Rhinos.

And one more.

Elephants, mice and...frogs.

No no. This is all wrong. Rhinos and horses are odd tied ungulates derived from something more like a tapir.

Hm. I'll have to do some reading.

 

[Dale]

And that's why you are having trouble believing the truthfulness of what God revealed about creation--you are too ready to make the scriptures say something you agree with, rather than being ready to agree with the scriptures.

But at least you use the phrase "much more likely", which hopefully means you are willing to consider the words in a more literal sense.

Could you tell me why you think there couldn't be a time in the future when an actual wolf will live with an actual lamb without one eating the other, or when an actual lion might actually eat straw? I'll give you an example where it happened in scripture.

We know that Nebuchadnezzar was a meat eater, because when the Hebrew young men, Daniel and his 3 friends, were fed the king's food, they asked to eat something better instead ("pulse" in the KJV, "vegetables" in other translations, but it shows that Nebuchadnezzar ate meat).
[Dan 1:5 KJV] 5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.

Later, when Nebby got too full of himself, God humbled him and he ate grass:
[Dan 4:33 KJV] 33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' [feathers], and his nails like birds' [claws].

Now, you might want to re-interpret this to mean that Nebuchadnezzar was really a kingdom, and the kingdom was at peace during this time, but that's not what God prophesied to him in his dream:
[Dan 4:24-25 KJV] 24 This [is] the interpretation, O king, and this [is] the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king: 25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

And to reinterpret this one, you would have to say that both the prophecy and its fulfillment, as described in the book of Daniel, are not to be trusted to tell us the truth of what happened.

Derf: “Could you tell me why you think there couldn't be a time in the future when an actual wolf will live with an actual lamb without one eating the other, or when an actual lion might actually eat straw?”


There are several places in the Bible where an animal is used to symbolize a country or nation. In Daniel 8, a goat stands for Greece while a ram stands for Persia. In Ezekiel 17, an eagle symbolizes Babylon.

In Ezekiel 31:3, Assyria is “a cedar in Lebanon.”

It is common animals to be used in place of nations in a parable in the Old Testament. That’s why it makes perfect sense for the lion laying down with the lamb in Isaiah to be a prediction of peace between nations. The Prince of Peace will lead nations to peace with each other.

Besides, God is more concerned with people than animals.

 

[Derf]

Derf: “Could you tell me why you think there couldn't be a time in the future when an actual wolf will live with an actual lamb without one eating the other, or when an actual lion might actually eat straw?”


There are several places in the Bible where an animal is used to symbolize a country or nation. In Daniel 8, a goat stands for Greece while a ram stands for Persia. In Ezekiel 17, an eagle symbolizes Babylon.

In Ezekiel 31:3, Assyria is “a cedar in Lebanon.”

It is common animals to be used in place of nations in a parable in the Old Testament. That’s why it makes perfect sense for the lion laying down with the lamb in Isaiah to be a prediction of peace between nations. The Prince of Peace will lead nations to peace with each other.

Besides, God is more concerned with people than animals.

You didn’t answer my question, though I appreciate your response. I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong, but even if you’re right, it doesn’t preclude the literal interpretation.

If you add that to the Genesis narrative that green herbs were given for food for every animal described, you have scripture describing similar conditions before and after sin is dealt with.
Genesis 1:30 (KJV) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Derf

I'll do another one because it interests me.

Turkeys (Thanksgiving).
Horses and,
Rhinos.

And one more.

Elephants, mice and...frogs.

No no. This is all wrong. Rhinos and horses are odd tied ungulates derived from something more like a tapir.

Hm. I'll have to do some reading.

This might be my next project. Is a wolf's DNA more similar to a zebras, than to a pigs, then further a hippo's, then further a whales. And does the fossil record reflect this order.

 

[Derf]

@Derf

I'll do another one because it interests me.

Turkeys (Thanksgiving).
Horses and,
Rhinos.

And one more.

Elephants, mice and...frogs.

So rhinos and horses are mammals. Turkeys are birds. Rhinos appear in the fossil succession before horses. Birds of course descended from theropods and mammals from reptiles as well so the order should be:

Bird>rhino>horse genetically. Because all of the above have reptiles in their past, the rhino should be genetically more similar to a bird because it is less derived than a horse.

That's my prediction for the first set.

My disappointment is growing. All you’ve done is said, “Because reptiles are descended from fish and horses from reptiles, we will find fish lower than reptiles and reptiles lower than horses in the fossil record.”
Have you considered other ways for that to happen? For instance, fish live at lower elevations than reptiles, and reptiles lower than horses, generally.

You’ve said evolution would be disproved if an animal was found out of sequence, but such happens fairly often, and the sequence is adjusted to fit. Coelacanth is an example, though in reverse—after it supposedly went extinct with the dinosaurs, suddenly some are found alive. All by itself it casts a huge shadow on the veracity of the fossil record, where a creature can hide for 60 million years undetected.

Grasses are another example. Until recently, grasses weren’t thought to have evolved until after dinosaurs were extinct, but now fossil coprolites have been found to have grasses in them.