Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Loudmouth]

You imply it all the time.

I will state it outright. If evolution is true, it does not disprove the existence of God.

Can we move past your misrepresentations of my position?

It was your claim, why wouldn't ID produce a nested hierarchy?

That's not what I claimed. Read again.

I fully agree that a trickster deity could design life so that it has tons of fake evidence for evolution. Is that the deity you are proposing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This again? Haven't I already shown you that the sequence is wrong?

You have pointed out that there is no evidence of plants/trees being present before the Cambrian...is that what you mean?

 

[Loudmouth]

You have pointed out that there is no evidence of plants/trees being present before the Cambrian...is that what you mean?

On top of that, whales show up after land mammals. Another out of sequence example. We have land animals well before flowers and grasses, another big departure from the supposed sequence. The Bible has birds on day 5, and non-bird land animals on day 6. That is completely wrong.

Need I go on?

 

[justlookinla]

That would require you to demonstrate that there has been a mistake. Where has anyone shown that these are not transitional fossils?

Where have you ever shown that they were produced by "breed mates"?

You keep posting this tired old graphic.....why?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When you present real evidence of Creation.

So now another one joins the ranks of Ostrich Theory followers.

Real evidence. You mean like finches that have been interbreeding since they arrived on the islands and were incorrectly labeled as separate species?

The real question is when are you going to present real evidence in support of evolution - instead of mistake after mistake in classification?

 

[Loudmouth]

So now another one joins the ranks of Ostrich Theory followers.

Real evidence. You mean like finches that have been interbreeding since they arrived on the islands and were incorrectly labeled as separate species?

The real question is when are you going to present real evidence in support of evolution - instead of mistake after mistake in classification?

Are these finches?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because they don't. Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

What you mean to say is you have never seen a Chevy Camaro become a dodge Charger. But only someone blinding themselves to the truth could ignore that clear hierarchy in each distinct class of cars all the way back to the first.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you mean to say is you have never seen a Chevy Camaro become a dodge Charger. But only someone blinding themselves to the truth could ignore that clear hierarchy in each distinct class of cars all the way back to the first.

Please show how cars fall into a nested hierarchy. Please use the shared and derived features, and show how you weighted the characteristics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are these finches?

Those are part of the error you have not corrected yet.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground...."

"..."Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches," said White. "The Dmanisi fossils give us a new yardstick, and when you apply that yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in the tree is dead wood. It's arm-waving...."

"...Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks...."

Once you remove half of those, we will talk about what you have left. Which won't be anything but humans and apes attempted to be mixed together because you classified them wrong. Stop your arm waving.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please show how cars fall into a nested hierarchy. Please use the shared and derived features, and show how you weighted the characteristics.

Let's put that picture back in shall we that you took out so people won't see the obvious.

Are you telling me you can't see the obvious hierarchy from the first one too the last? Go ahead - start with the first one and go all the way to the last - a clear path will develop.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those are part of the error you have not corrected yet.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground...."

None of those were categorized as H. sapiens. All of them are transitional, no matter if you divide them into separate species or lump them into one. You can't seem to understand that we don't determine if a fossil is transitional by the name we give it. The transitional nature of a fossil is based on its morphology, not its name. Notice that the picture of the hominid transitionals has zero names on it.

"..."Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches," said White. "The Dmanisi fossils give us a new yardstick, and when you apply that yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in the tree is dead wood. It's arm-waving...."

"...Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks...."

Whether you consider them as three different species or one species, they are still transitional. That is what you still can not understand.

Once you remove half of those, we will talk about what you have left. Which won't be anything but humans and apes attempted to be mixed together because you classified them wrong.

I have the morphology of the fossils left which is the only basis on which a transitional fossil is judged.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's put that picture back in shall we that you took out so people won't see the obvious.

Are you telling me you can't see the obvious hierarchy from the first one too the last? Go ahead - start with the first one and go all the way to the last - a clear path will develop.

I see no nested hierarchy. If you claim there is one, please spell it out.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have land animals well before flowers and grasses, another big departure from the supposed sequence. The Bible has birds on day 5, and non-bird land animals on day 6. That is completely wrong.

Need I go on?

Yes, we understand you think land dwelling grass eaters appeared before there was grass to eat. What you mean to say is that bone lasts longer than grass and is more likely to become fossilized before it decays. Don't you all keep telling us about how rare fossilization is and we are missing most of the record? Now we have a complete record? Do wish you would make up your minds and what stance you are going to take on any issue on any given day.

http://www.livescience.com/50419-oldest-flower-fossil-angiosperm.html
"Like modern flowers, the fossil sports sepals and petals, the researchers said. However, its age of 162 million years puts it smack in the Jurassic period, and in the middle of a passionate debate over the origin of angiosperms, the world's most successful and diverse group of plants. Did angiosperms first bloom in the Cretaceous period, or were they around earlier, in the Jurassic period, the heyday of giant, plant-eating dinosaurs like Apatosaurus?

"People will have to rethink everything about angiosperms because of this fossil," said study co-author Xin Wang, a paleobotanist at the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology in China."

Seems the scientists may be willing to accept their theories may be wrong - it's only you that clings to pre-conceived beliefs.

http://www.ibtimes.com/dna-oldest-flowering-plant-addresses-darwins-abominable-mystery-study-1516714

"A team of researchers have sequenced the genome of the Amborella plant, one of the two oldest lineages of flowering plants, for the first time, potentially addressing Charles Darwin’s “abominable mystery” -- the question of why flowers proliferated on Earth millions of years ago."

But yes, we understand they sprang up out of nowhere fully formed, and hence your confusion as to why flowers proliferated and are all fully formed in every single fossil found.

Those dinosaurs have been munching on grass since the day they were created.

http://www.livescience.com/3912-dung-reveals-dinosaurs-ate-grass.html
"Grass existed on Earth at least 10 million years earlier than was known, based on a new discovery in fossilized dinosaur dung."

Science just keeps disproving the myth evolutionists tell - one discovery at a time.

But go ahead Loud, keep practicing that Ostrich Theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just so we are clear, here is how a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny, works. At the end, you need all of the species in a tree on their own branch, like this one:

If we are using the Camaro's, then each model needs it's own branch. Where each branch connects we have the nodes. These represent the shared features for all of the species or models of Camaro's that trace back to that node. Here is a simple phylogeny with shared traits:

The first division is chordates with and without a vertebral column. Lancelets do not have a vertebral column, but all of the species on the other branch do. The next division is a jaw. Lampreys do not have a jaw, but all of the other species on the other branch do. We do the same thing with four walking legs, an amniotic egg, and hair. At the end, all of the groups are on their own branch and we have shared features as well as unshared features. They all fit onto a tree. Not only that, but it is quite obvious from the tree that having or not having a jaw is a much bigger deal than having or not having hair. The characteristics are weighted with some characteristics being more important than others.

So let's see the same thing for the cars. Come up with the physical characteristics that separate each car, and show how they can produce an objective phylogeny. Show how one feature is more important than others when producing the phylogeny.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

None of those were categorized as H. sapiens. All of them are transitional, no matter if you divide them into separate species or lump them into one. You can't seem to understand that we don't determine if a fossil is transitional by the name we give it. The transitional nature of a fossil is based on its morphology, not its name. Notice that the picture of the hominid transitionals has zero names on it.



Whether you consider them as three different species or one species, they are still transitional. That is what you still can not understand.



I have the morphology of the fossils left which is the only basis on which a transitional fossil is judged.

None of them are transitional, not a single one. They are all of the same species, merely different breeds.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

"The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps."

You confuse them as being transitional because we know for a fact that when Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian - there exists no transitional forms between them. Who are you really trying to convince by ignoring the empirical observations, yourself?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, we understand you think land dwelling grass eaters appeared before there was grass to eat.

Since when?

I like how you start off with something you made up from nothing.

What you mean to say is that bone lasts longer than grass and is more likely to become fossilized before it decays.

Something else you have made up from whole cloth.

Don't you all keep telling us about how rare fossilization is and we are missing most of the record?

We are talking about an entire class of plants, not a specific single species within a class.

http://www.livescience.com/50419-oldest-flower-fossil-angiosperm.html
"Like modern flowers, the fossil sports sepals and petals, the researchers said. However, its age of 162 million years puts it smack in the Jurassic period, and in the middle of a passionate debate over the origin of angiosperms, the world's most successful and diverse group of plants. Did angiosperms first bloom in the Cretaceous period, or were they around earlier, in the Jurassic period, the heyday of giant, plant-eating dinosaurs like Apatosaurus?

There were tetrapods in the Devonian, 400 million years ago. We are talking about a 240 million year gap.

But go ahead Loud, keep practicing that Ostrich Theory.

Says the person who thinks finding 3 transitional fossils from the same transitional species is a problem for the theory of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

None of them are transitional, not a single one. They are all of the same species, merely different breeds.

Why can't three fossils be from the same species and also be transitional? Are you saying that a transitional species should only ever be made up of a single individual?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just so we are clear, here is how a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny, works. At the end, you need all of the species in a tree on their own branch, like this one:

If we are using the Camaro's, then each model needs it's own branch. Where each branch connects we have the nodes. These represent the shared features for all of the species or models of Camaro's that trace back to that node. Here is a simple phylogeny with shared traits:

The first division is chordates with and without a vertebral column. Lancelets do not have a vertebral column, but all of the species on the other branch do. The next division is a jaw. Lampreys do not have a jaw, but all of the other species on the other branch do. We do the same thing with four walking legs, an amniotic egg, and hair. At the end, all of the groups are on their own branch and we have shared features as well as unshared features. They all fit onto a tree. Not only that, but it is quite obvious from the tree that having or not having a jaw is a much bigger deal than having or not having hair. The characteristics are weighted with some characteristics being more important than others.

So let's see the same thing for the cars. Come up with the physical characteristics that separate each car, and show how they can produce an objective phylogeny. Show how one feature is more important than others when producing the phylogeny.

Show me that species that divided into both Chimp and human. Come on - I want to see any of them where the branches split. You claim to have evidence - show them to me. Or are you just making up claimed ancestors on those trees. But go ahead - show us all the claimed ancestor that split into both human and apes.

And I'll be waiting till the end of time for anyone to show me. Which one could forgive it it was just one or two, but every claimed species that split into two, you have not one single fossil of them - at any of the "claimed" branching into two different species. This is fact, and is why I confidently state you will never produce a single one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me that species that divided into both Chimp and human.

You still don't understand how phylogenies work, do you? There are no species at the nodes of branches in a phylogeny. Also, we have all of the genetic evidence demonstrating that humans and chimps do share a common ancestor.

You claimed that those cars fit into a nested hierarchy. Let's see it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We will discuss it when you can produce the evidence for the transitional fossils under question.

How can I do that when none exist? Have you ever seen a transitional form when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian? No, of course you haven't. So what would transitional forms have to do with breed mating with breed producing new breeds? Since they have never been observed in real life?