Evolution conflict and division

[Job 33:6]

I suspect the nasty but predictable name-calling and derogatory posts stem from the frustration that evos feel when their own expert colleagues are in disagreement.

Asked and answered. Are you not willing as I am to do the research? I gave you the footnote from Nature:

The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.​

I don't see any mention of reptiles in here.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't see any mention of reptiles in here.

Nor do you see any mention of reptiles in my post.

The article claims to debunk the transitional fossil claim logically:
The origin of reptiles on Earth has been pushed back by an astonishing 40 million years. Fossilized tracks unearthed in Australia provide compelling evidence that reptilelike animals existed far earlier than previously thought.

 

[Job 33:6]

From your post, I'll quote:
"Reptile fossil trackways were discovered in 2025, that also predate tiktaalik by supposedly millions of years".

@o_mlly would you mind clarifying on what your source is talking about? What reptile trackways predate tiktaalik?

Oh that's right, there are none.

 

[o_mlly]

Oh that's right, there are none.

You're welcome.

 

[Job 33:6]

You're welcome.

The source you shared is plainly incorrect, it source mentions there being reptile trackways millions of years older than tiktaalik, yet no such thing has actually been discovered. Can you acknowledge that it contains misinformation? I’m not sure why I should be thankful for it.

Furthermore, instead of acknowledging the error, it seems you are defending it or avoiding the issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

You apparently don't understand what "ontological" means.
ontological /ŏn′tə-lŏj′ĭ-kəl/
Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.

I thought this was interesting:

"Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato’s demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being."
-Michael Behe

Once one is left arguing with dictionaries there isn't much left to be said.

The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.

No reptile tracks, after all? Just evidence that where were transitional tetrapods a few million years earlier than the oldest we know about? Not much comfort for creationists, is it?

 

[The Barbarian]

I suspect the nasty but predictable name-calling and derogatory posts stem from the frustration that evos feel when their own expert colleagues are in disagreement.

You're a little confused. Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood are YECs. They are experts in paleontology and as you have seen, they disagree with you. There are many, many transitional fossils and fossil series.

 

[The Barbarian]

Someone notices something interesting. Someone suggests an explanation for it. Someone goes out and tests the explanation.

Tests?

Yes. For example,. Huxley's prediction of transitions between birds and other dinosaurs. Much later, evidence confirms his prediction. And as you've learned, there is an abundance of evidence showing observed evolution, which you still seem to confuse with common descent. And as I pointed out, biology undergraduates test predictions of evolution regularly. Would you like to learn about that?

Yes, as I've explained to you the empirical sciences are more reliable and robust in their claims than the historic sciences.

You're confused again. As you have seen, things like the evolution of a new enzyme system have been directly observed. It might be good for you to learn a little about population genetics. A simple example of empirical science in evolution is the Hardy-Weinberg equation. It is used to test for natural selection in a population and it's a good and (for a layman understandable) example of empirical science in evolution research. Would you like to learn some other examples?

Nothing else humans can do, works better for understanding the physical universe.

As EES attempts to do just that

Effort doesn't count. Results count. Feel free to show an example of attempts actually succeeding.

And that's why ID and YEC are not used by scientists. They are religious beliefs, based on textual interpretations by people who have deemed themselves authorities.

As a theistic evolutionist, do you not observe design in nature? The atheists do.

I see creation. I see natural processes. But no design. Darwin's discovery showed why there is an illusion of design. IDers would demote God to a mere "designer"; Christians worship Him as the Creator. Creatures design. God creates. And genetic algorithms show that evolutionary processes are more efficient at solving very complex problems than design would be. God knows best. Listen to Him.

If you'd like to learn why evolution sometimes looks like design, you might want to read Life's Devices by Stephen Vogel

I see your modesty factor has not improved much yet.

He did it. I accept it. You should, too.
(Barbarian points out that evolution is observed and tested by undergraduates in universities)
(Sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)

Yes. Show us a repeatable spontaneous macro-evolution events performed in the lab.

Even many YECs now freely admit the macroevolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. Would you like me to show you? They just say it's "not real evolution."

I notice you thrice declined to tell us which of the four points of Darwin's theory have been refuted.

And you will not see me explain the erroneous points in astrological charts either.

It would be simple to point out errors in astrological principles. Surely by now you had time to look up the points of Darwin's theory. Be brave and make an attempt. If not even one part of this theory is false, isn't it time for you to face the reality? Fourth request.

A Google search for the phrase “For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space”– which Dawkins attributes to ID proponents–turns up only one hit: Dawkins' article. Try doing more research before posting slander.

It's in Darwin on Trial,I believe. Same book where he admitted that Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution, although he didn't think it was very good evidence for evolution. Checking his writing, it appears that among other beliefs he also was convinced that HIV tests did not test for HIV

What Causes AIDS?

Scientists have serious doubts about the official theory linking HIV and AIDS.

reason.com

You may not be aware that Johnson was a lawyer, and had very little biological knowledge. He was mostly motivated by religious objections to science.

You have posted several disingenuous citations that expose a closed mind on the matter.

I think you'd be more effective against biology, if you put more effort into citing facts and putting them into a cogent argument. I'm not saying you're intentionally disingenuous, but you have given that impression by dodging questions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't see any mention of reptiles in here.

Me, either. The reasoning seems to be that if they are older than Tiktaalik, they have to be reptiles. However, the fossil record and genetics tells us that amniote vertebrates didn't exist for many million years thereafter.

 

[Job 33:6]

You apparently don't understand what "ontological" means.
ontological /ŏn′tə-lŏj′ĭ-kəl/
Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.


Once one is left arguing with dictionaries there isn't much left to be said.


No reptile tracks, after all? Just evidence that where were transitional tetrapods a few million years earlier than the oldest we know about? Not much comfort for creationists, is it?

Yes, and get this, even the possible tetrapod trackways, may not even be such to begin with:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281896779_Thinopus_and_a_Critical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints

They're contested as fish feeding traces. And of course, no actual bone material is present to clarify what the species actually is. But for ID advocates, this is enough and they would die on this hill. A hill that even if we assumed the trackways to be of a tetrapod, would still align with the theory of evolution anyway.

 

[o_mlly]

The source you shared is plainly incorrect, it source mentions there being reptile trackways millions of years older than tiktaalik, yet no such thing has actually been discovered.

As I explained to you, the article does not say what you claim it says. Deflection again?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of the time problem that the article puts forward?

I'll tell you a likely reason: bias. If the scientist is dispassionate then he examines his evidence free of presuppositions. However, the pseudo-scientist presupposes what he's looking for. If one "knows" what he's looking for then he'll likely find it ... especially true in the murky evidence and inference rich world of the historiographical science of evolution. And, so it is with the die-hard evos here.

 

[Job 33:6]

As I explained to you, the article does not say what you claim it says. Deflection again?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of the time problem that the article puts forward?

I'll tell you a likely reason: bias. If the scientist is dispassionate then he examines his evidence free of presuppositions. However, the pseudo-scientist presupposes what he's looking for. If one "knows" what he's looking for then he'll likely find it ... especially true in the murky evidence and inference rich world of the historiographical science of evolution. And, so it is with the die-hard evos here.

From your post, I'll quote:
"Reptile fossil trackways were discovered in 2025, that also predate tiktaalik by supposedly millions of years".

I'm simply asking, what reptile fossil trackways were discovered in 2025, that also predate tiktaalik?

And you're not able to say (because such a discovery never actually happened).

Why are you avoiding this issue?

You're saying that the article doesn't say what I am claiming that it says. Yet I've provided you with a screenshot multiple times. Here, I'll do it again, here is your post:

Do you see the third bullet point in your table?

 

[o_mlly]

The advance of science always requires a funeral. And the pipes are calling for neo-Darwinism. They don't have the bones or the time; nor answers for the novelties of evolving complex body forms, or the existence of information coded in the DNA.

EES will likely light the neo's funeral pier eventually but, since they also don't have a Mr. White, or the Word, or Nowhere in their Clue cards; they too will also attempt to sneak in some material substitute for the Lord. I'll let you evos have the last word.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suspect the nasty but predictable name-calling and derogatory posts stem from the frustration that evos feel when their own expert colleagues are in disagreement.

Asked and answered. Are you not willing as I am to do the research? I gave you the footnote from Nature:

The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.​

..... at least we're not Mormons.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll tell you a likely reason: bias. If the scientist is dispassionate then he examines his evidence free of presuppositions. However, the pseudo-scientist presupposes what he's looking for. If one "knows" what he's looking for then he'll likely find it ...

Like "reptile pathways", for example. BTW, there were lobed-fin fishes, capable of leaving tracks on the bottoms of ponds, long before Tiktaalik:

Nature Dec 2005

The pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys and the origin of tetrapod locomotion​

One of the most marked transformations in the vertebrate transition to land was that of fins to limbs. This transformation involved not only the generation of morphological novelties (digits, sacrum) but also a shift in locomotory dominance from the pectoral to the pelvic appendage1. Despite its importance, the transformation from pelvic fin to hindlimb is the least studied and least well-documented part of this transformation, which is bracketed by the osteolepiform Eusthenopteron and the early tetrapods Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, but is not directly illuminated by any intermediate form. Panderichthys is the closest tetrapod relative currently represented by complete fossils2, but its pelvic fin skeleton has not been described. Here, I present the only known articulated pelvic fin endoskeleton and associated partial pelvis of Panderichthys. The pelvic girdle is even less tetrapod-like than that of the osteolepiform Eusthenopteron3, but the pelvic fin endoskeleton shares derived characteristics with basal tetrapods despite being more primitive than the pectoral fin of Panderichthys

 

[Job 33:6]

The advance of science always requires a funeral. And the pipes are calling for neo-Darwinism. They don't have the bones or the time; nor answers for the novelties of evolving complex body forms, or the existence of information coded in the DNA.

EES will likely light the neo's funeral pier eventually but, since they also don't have a Mr. White, or the Word, or Nowhere in their Clue cards; they too will also attempt to sneak in some material substitute for the Lord. I'll let you evos have the last word.

But of course, we do have bones, lots of them:

I gave a specific example of tiktaalik:

You responded with an article claiming that there were reptile trackways that predate tiktaalik, see bullet 3 in your post below:

However, your response contains misinformation. No such reptile fossil tracks exist. When I asked you for names or citations, none were provided.

In short, Evolutionary biology continues to make successful predictions and discoveries, regardless of your personal philosophical disagreements.

 

[The Barbarian]

The advance of science always requires a funeral. And the pipes are calling for neo-Darwinism.

Honest YE creationists know better:

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.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

They don't have the bones

Honest YE creationists know better:
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

This is why young evangelicals are moving away from YE.

I'll let you evos have the last word.

Ironically, I let honest and knowledgeable YECs have the last word. There's really no way to dodge the truth.

BTW, "the pipes are calling" is not to a funeral, but a call to arms. Irish pipes are always a call for men to arms.

Oh Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen, and down the mountain side
The summer's gone, and all the flowers are dying
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.

It's an old man, speaking to his son who will soon leave to war.

 

[o_mlly]

Irish pipes are always a call for men to arms.

So, why not just admit that you've never been to an Irish funeral?

 

[The Barbarian]

Soldier Playing Bagpipes, "The Call to Arms, Irishmen Don't you Hear it", World War I Recruitment Poster, United Kingdom, 1915 - SuperStock

Stock image 1838-21529496: Soldier Playing Bagpipes, "The Call to Arms, Irishmen Don't you Hear it", World War I Recruitment Poster, United Kingdom, 1915

www.superstock.com

In America, maybe different. I see police and others using them at funerals. But in Ireland, the pipes call for men to war.

And notice your fellow YE creationists openly refute your claims about evolutionary thoery:
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.

And your claims that scientists "don't have the bones."
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

And they happen to be familiar with the evidence, so they have an advantage on you. Why not just accept the reality?

 

[o_mlly]

In America, maybe different. I see police and others using them at funerals. But in Ireland, the pipes call for men to war.

Clearly, you need to get out more often. I've been to Ireland several times and attended family funerals with the pipes being played.

Evos often use microevolution events and masquerade them as macro. You're just repeating yourself. I've moved on; so should you.