Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[mark kennedy]

No, it's not an ad hominem. It's me stating the fact that you keep using that term when someone points out you are wrong in an attempt to avoid answering any issue. An ad hominem is an attack on the person's character instead of their argument, which no-one except you has done. And no, that's not an ad hominem either.

But you want fossils? Fine. Look at the chain of fossils from the ambulocetus to modern whales. You will distinctly see that, along with the body shape becoming more streamlined, you will see:

• that the hind limbs shrink through lack of use,
• the fingers elongate to form flippers,
• the tail flukes to provide better propulsion through the water,
• and the nose shifts position from the front of the snout to near the top of the head.

Evidence of evolution. *mic drop*

I got no problem with anphibians, the transitions are wildly exaggerated but adaptive evolution causes no problem for me as a Creationist. See I happen to know that tion is a phenomenon while Darwinism is an a priori assumption. Anyway, my thing is human evolution in general and the brain in particular.

Now this amphibian is interesting, not unlike transitional between robust and glacial skulls. Read a really interesting paper on evolution from dinosaurs to birds, apparently a transition from diaphragm to belo type lungs is unlikely.

You see there is a problem, evolving digits, color, texture are all one thing. Its pretty standard Mendilion stuff. Evolving internal organs is something else entirely.

So what was that. At least ten ad hominem, two begging the question and a length equivocation argument. This is like post 80 and the first time an actual fossil is mentioned.

Have a nice day,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

I use ad hominem arguments almost exclusively, peer reviewed scientific journals are a source no self respecting evolutionist would reject. What they do is say I don't understand it and they very seldom read it. The topic isn't me, The topic is fossils, yet no one is talking about fossils because they are too busy correcting and criticizing me. That tells me they know very little or have on interest in fossils. What they like to do is insult Christians who actually believe the Bible.

I withdraw my offer anyway. You offered an inadequate definition of "Ape" ad verecundiam and so should have expected ad hominem rebuttals.

Here is the scientific, rather than the popular definition:

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia. They are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation . There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons or lesser apes; and the homonids, or great apes.
The family Hylobatidae, the lesser apes, include four genera and a total of sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang , all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.
The family Hominidae , known collectively as the great apes , includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Alternatively, this family clade is also known as the hominids. There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).

 

[mark kennedy]

Dover is over... and ID/creationism/cdesign proponentsists are dead in the water. Indeed, Mark, it's time to accept reality and move on.

Yes Dover rejected Intelligent Design because the Designer had to be God, no surprise there because of the establishment clause. Everyone has moved on, you guys are like pilot fish without a shark. They left shortly after the gay marriage thing was done. That's what I've been telling you, your performing before an empty theater.

 

[mark kennedy]

I withdraw my offer anyway. You offered an inadequate definition of "Ape" ad verecundiam and so should have expected ad hominem rebuttals.

Here is the scientific, rather than the popular definition:

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia. They are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation . There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons or lesser apes; and the homonids, or great apes.
The family Hylobatidae, the lesser apes, include four genera and a total of sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang , all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.
The family Hominidae , known collectively as the great apes , includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Alternatively, this family clade is also known as the hominids. There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).

Yea that nomenclature can come in handy on the Berkly Tree of Life site. Taxonomy is kind of like a road map or card catalogue, properly used you can get wherever or whatever you want. The trouble is it proves little and fielding these personal remarks is always the first wave anyway. Might as well get it over early.

 

[Speedwell]

Yea that nomenclature can come in handy on the Berkly Tree of Life site. Taxonomy is kind of like a road map or card catalogue, properly used you can get wherever or whatever you want. The trouble is it proves little and fielding these personal remarks is always the first wave anyway. Might as well get it over early.

By itself it proves nothing; it is merely descriptive like any other naming system. The interesting part is the information used in its construction. Gathering and analyzing it requires an immense amount of labor by serious-minded professionals from a wide range of scholarly disciplines. To think that all of this work has been undertaken merely to discredit the Bible doctrine of a minority sect of Christianity must make you feel really special.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes Dover rejected Intelligent Design because the Designer had to be God,

Wrong. They rejected ID, because it's no more "science" than astrology is.

no surprise there because of the establishment clause.

It's no surprise, because it's not science.

Everyone has moved on,

So you brought it up because...?

you guys are like pilot fish without a shark.

I'm not even sure what this means.

They left shortly after the gay marriage thing was done.

Right, because it's up to you whether someone should be married, or not.

That's what I've been telling you,

And we've been telling you why you're wrong.

your performing before an empty theater.

"Evolution, the greatest show on earth, the only game in town."

“Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.”

Time to wake up and smell the coffee, Mark.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you ever respond to my question? I'm sorry if I missed it, but how was it you read old issues of Nature, and came to a complete opposite conclusion than the authors did?

I got no problem with anphibians, the transitions are wildly exaggerated but adaptive evolution causes no problem for me as a Creationist. See I happen to know that tion is a phenomenon while Darwinism is an a priori assumption. Anyway, my thing is human evolution in general and the brain in particular.

Now this amphibian is interesting, not unlike transitional between robust and glacial skulls. Read a really interesting paper on evolution from dinosaurs to birds, apparently a transition from diaphragm to belo type lungs is unlikely.

You see there is a problem, evolving digits, color, texture are all one thing. Its pretty standard Mendilion stuff. Evolving internal organs is something else entirely.

So what was that. At least ten ad hominem, two begging the question and a length equivocation argument. This is like post 80 and the first time an actual fossil is mentioned.

Have a nice day,
Mark

 

[HitchSlap]

To think that all of this work has been undertaken merely to discredit the Bible doctrine of a minority sect of Christianity must make you feel really special.

That just means they're on the right track.

Everything's a conspiracy, dontchaknow.

 

[mark kennedy]

Did you ever respond to my question? I'm sorry if I missed it, but how was it you read old issues of Nature, and came to a complete opposite conclusion than the authors did?

You read the Bible and come to different conclusions. The thing about journals is they will get the details right in there, I just have to know what is fact and what is convention.

 

[HitchSlap]

You read the Bible and come to different conclusions. The thing about journals is they will get the details right in there, I just have to know what is fact and what is convention.

So, you give the bible more weight about paleontology (which IINM, doesn't mention dinos.) than the actual experts in the field. Then you have the audacity to suggest that all of us who understand the evidence, and why the experts assert what they do, are all wrong? Well, aside from being arrogant (and certainly a healthy dose of the Dunning-Kruger effect), it's not enough to say all of paleontology is wrong, but now you need to come up with an hypothesis that better explains the data.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wrong. They rejected ID, because it's no more "science" than astrology is.

If you can't discern between philosophical natural theology and mystical fortune telling it's No surprise you have nothing but ad hominem attacks.

It's no surprise, because it's not science.

Neither is Darwinism.

"Evolution, the greatest show on earth, the only game in town."

Common equivocation. Your equivocating the pheno.neon in nature where traits change in populations over time with the a priori assumption of universal common descent going all the way back to the big BANG.

“Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.”

Define evolution because the equivocation of Darwinism with evolutionary biology is a vulgar one.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee, Mark.

No less then four ad hominem pedantic one liners and you twice repeated an equivocation fallacy. This post tels me you neither know nor do you care about evolution or natural science. Your kind of weak compared to the strollers of the past. Their still in every thread but then they were like zombies, it was night of the living dead fallacies.

Ok, really picked up some points there. Total is like fifteen ad hominem, two begging the question and four equivocation.

 

[mark kennedy]

So, you give the bible more weight about paleontology (which IINM, doesn't mention dinos.)

Dinos can't save my soul from the lake of fire and a bunch of old bones and dirt don't tell me much about how life works

than the actual experts in the field. Then you have the audacity to suggest that all of us who understand the evidence, and why the experts assert what they do, are all wrong? Well, aside from being arrogant (and certainly a healthy dose of the Dunning-Kruger effect), it's not enough to say all of paleontology is wrong, but now you need to come up with an hypothesis that better explains the data.

Ok here is where you feign moral indignation, invoke a pusalominous clutch phrase and try to get me to chase your pedantic rhetoric in circles.

This one was obviously ad hominem so that comes to 16 ad hominem, 4 equivocation, two begging the question and your attempting to use circular logic except I'm not dumb enough to chase it.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you can't discern between philosophical natural theology and mystical fortune telling it's No surprise you have nothing but ad hominem attacks.

I can discern between astronomy / astrology - so did the judge.

I can discern between scientific method / IDcreationism - so did the judge.

I can discern between independently verifiable objective facts and creationism in cheap tuxedos - so did the judge.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/design-trial

Sorry, Dover killed IDcreationismcdesignproponentsists. The fat lady has sung.

Neither is Darwinism.

I'm sure you had a point when you typed this.

Common equivocation. Your equivocating the pheno.neon in nature where traits change in populations over time with the a priori assumption of universal common descent going all the way back to the big BANG.

You don't understand how theories develop, do you? Go back and re-read those Nature articles.

Define evolution because the equivocation of Darwinism with evolutionary biology is a vulgar one.

If you say so.

No less then four ad hominem pedantic one liners and you twice repeated an equivocation fallacy. This post tels me you neither know nor do you care about evolution or natural science. Your kind of weak compared to the strollers of the past. Their still in every thread but then they were like zombies, it was night of the living dead fallacies.

Your persistence in chasing windmills says more about your tenuous position than my understanding of science.

Ok, really picked up some points there. Total is like fifteen ad hominem, two begging the question and four equivocation.

Still waiting for evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dinos can't save my soul from the lake of fire and a bunch of old bones and dirt don't tell me much about how life works

Is that what you were expecting when you clicked on this thread? I hope not, because I don't know the first thing about fire lakes and souls. Sounds painful!

Ok here is where you feign moral indignation, invoke a pusalominous clutch phrase and try to get me to chase your pedantic rhetoric in circles.

Parsimonious, pusillanimous, pus... not sure which word you meant here?
http://www.dictionary.com/

 

[RickG]

I use ad hominem arguments almost exclusively, peer reviewed scientific journals are a source no self respecting evolutionist would reject. What they do is say I don't understand it and they very seldom read it. The topic isn't me, The topic is fossils, yet no one is talking about fossils because they are too busy correcting and criticizing me. That tells me they know very little or have on interest in fossils. What they like to do is insult Christians who actually believe the Bible.

They are criticizing your argument, not you personally.

 

[HitchSlap]

They are criticizing your argument, not you personally.

I don't think he recognizes the difference.

 

[RickG]

I don't think he recognizes the difference.

It appears to be so. BTW, I to have asked about the Nature articles with no reply.

 

[USincognito]

Actually the ancestors that chimpanzees have never seemed to have left the jungle. Their environment is far to wet for bones to be preserved. The ancestors of ours that we have records of are after they left the damp jungle and moved to the dry and open plains. You do realize that most of the species, especially land based species, did not leave a fossil record of their existence, don't you?

It's been explained to him that jungle environments are not conducive to fossilization for years now. Given how immune to correction Creationists are, it's not surprising that he's still repeating it though.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's been explained to him that jungle environments are not conducive to fossilization for years now. Given how immune to correction Creationists are, it's not surprising that he's still repeating it though.

 

[USincognito]

You really should not start of with an ad hominem fallacy with someone who knows what he is talking about

You mean like the Leakey's?