Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Heissonear]

The thread topic.

Evolution has not been seen once to occur by scientific investigation of the fossil record. Not once have we unearthed fossils that show clear sequences of the detailed morphological changes of one macro-assemblage creature changing into another macro-assemblage creature.

What the fossil record shows is only different Kinds of creatures and variations within each Kind. That's it: no detailed fossils found over time showing one Kind of creature changing into a different Kind.

Since evolution is not a fact by evidence it can only be claimed to occur by conjecture. It is a belief.

The below is an example of what is presented as evolution in textbooks and publications: macro-assemblages of creatures said to evolve from one macro-assemblage creature to the next.

Where are the fossils - for any macro-assemblage grouping - that show clear sequences of morphological changes as one macro-assemblage creature changes into the next (such as Pakicetidae changed/evolved into Ambulocetidae in the above illustration)?

The theory of evolution has run into a brick wall.

Over the past 160 years, since release of Darwin's Origin of Species, the fossils that were to be found inbetween known creatures, showing the anticipated detailed morphological changes sequence of creatures that occurred between them, have not been found.

The fossils that are to prove evolution happened are missing. It looks like they never occurred.

Has any evolutionist told you about this? Is this something evolutionists face up to in their literature?

Has any evolutionist or evolutionists publication mentioned that it takes conjecture and belief to state evolution occurred?

Or have the godless derived and over promoted a "no Creator needed" theory that lacks firsthand evidence after 160 years has passed?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You keep making the claim that evolution is 'in trouble'... but you have never once presented any evidence to back up your claim.

 

[Heissonear]

When people who have heard evolution is a fact, once they learn the very proof that should exist to make it a fact is missing, how will many react?

Become open to other ways life could have come about?

Follow the crowd (accept and become a group-think)?

Follow what men say (continue to follow men)?

 

[Heissonear]

You keep making the claim that evolution is 'in trouble'... but you have never once presented any evidence to back up your claim.

Inbetween fossils please, between these macro-assemblages.

 

[Heissonear]

If the godless wonder, any devout, in open comunication with God by His Spirit, would learn of the fossils in the Earth, they would not make a hasty conclusion.

Instead, they would gather evidence and bring such before the Creator.

The godless walk on this Earth. How would they react to seeing fossils? Would they derive a "no Creator needed" creed?

Many on CF are bias to the later and lack information about the former.

Walking with God as Enoch and others have on Earth, is not something the godless have knowledge about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Inbetween fossils please, between these macro-assemblages.

View attachment 242935

See, the funny thing is: you have repeatedly been shown the transitional fossils... but you just flat out ignore them. You have done so repeatedly and blatantly, and then you keep making the same claim and request again and again and again and again...

Now; this evidence for the claim that evolution 'is in trouble' please.

 

[Heissonear]

See, the funny thing is: you have repeatedly been shown the transitional fossils... but you just flat out ignore them. You have done so repeatedly and blatantly, and then you keep making the same claim and request again and again and again and again...

Now; this evidence for the claim that evolution 'is in trouble' please.

When I was a godless person in college it was obvious to see. Even to a godless naturalist like me.

It is fair to say some cannot grasp how different one assemblage (like Ambulocetidae) is to another assemblage (like Rimingtoncetidae).

Some may not grasp how many morphological differences that exist and thereby how many mutations were required until one respected assemblage changed into the other assemblage.

Look at Ambulocetidae and Rimingtoncetidae. How many detailed differences are between them?

Now, show the fossil creatures that gradationally showed one change into the other; the Ambulocetidae fossils that show evolution of morphology into Rimingtoncetidae.

 

[Heissonear]

So where are the fossils between macro-assemblages?

The Flippers to Feet photo above presents appendages of fossils where feet changed (by claimed evolution process) into flippers. Each represent a macro-assemblage creature.

The illustration below is the creatures the Flippers from Feet came from.

Each macro-assemblage creature was definitely different morphologically than the next macro-assemblage creature.

Where are the inbetween fossils showing the morphological transition from one macro-assemblage creature into the othe other macro-assemblage creature; such as Ambulocetidae to Rimingtoncetidae?

 

[Heissonear]

Before I carry on: did this thread disappear for anyone else? I kept getting an error message when I tried to get on to this thread. Weird.

All you're doing is just making an argument from ignorance. The plain ignorance that you cannot actually look at any evidence for evolution because they go against your prior religious convictions.

Present the fossils that are suppose to prove evolution occurred, as referenced in posts #7 and #9.

That is what this thread is focused on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Present the fossils that are suppose to prove evolution occurred, as referenced in posts #7 and #9.

That is what this thread is focused on.

Here's the thing: you have been shown REPEATEDLY, in every thread you appear on, and you just flat out ignore the evidence and go back to repeating your same claims again and again, while you make the same claim that evolution 'is in trouble', a claim that you have NOT ONCE backed up.

 

[Ophiolite]

Present the fossils that are suppose to prove evolution occurred, as referenced in posts #7 and #9.

That is what this thread is focused on.

The clear gradation present in the feet to flippers example obviates the need for any further intermediaries. Since you are unable to recognise this I am unable to help you.

Best you just talk of the ignorance of evolutionists with like minded Christians and leave alone the rest of the agnostics, atheists, Christians and those of other faiths, who accept evolution. In short, your repetition of the same tired, defective mantra and your complete inability to see what is staring you in the face, is becoming tiresome. Evolution's Brick Wall thread was shut down for a reason. I think this one will (and should) follow shortly.

 

[Heissonear]

Here's the thing: you have been shown REPEATEDLY, in every thread you appear on, and you just flat out ignore the evidence and go back to repeating your same claims again and again, while you make the same claim that evolution 'is in trouble', a claim that you have NOT ONCE backed up.

So far no inbetween fossils to post #7 and #9.

Where are the fossils between the creatures below to prove one came from the other, as claimed by evolutionists.

Say uncle!

 

[Heissonear]

The clear gradation present in the feet to flippers example obviates the need for any further intermediaries. Since you are unable to recognise this I am unable to help you.

Best you just talk of the ignorance of evolutionists with like minded Christians and leave alone the rest of the agnostics, atheists, Christians and those of other faiths, who accept evolution. In short, your repetition of the same tired, defective mantra and your complete inability to see what is staring you in the face, is becoming tiresome. Evolution's Brick Wall thread was shut down for a reason. I think this one will (and should) follow shortly.

Yes, such is explaining away the missing fossils.

 

[inquiring mind]

Evolution has masqueraded as ‘fact’ for so long now that proponents are convinced the proof has already been provided... it’s almost comical.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So far no inbetween fossils to post #7 and #9.

Where are the fossils between the creatures below to prove one came from the other, as claimed by evolutionists.

View attachment 242969

Say uncle!

We haven't found the fossils yet. Happy now?
Now where's this evidence that evolution 'is in trouble'?

 

[HTacianas]

The thread topic.

Evolution has not been seen once to occur by scientific investigation of the fossil record. Not once have we unearthed fossils that show clear sequences of the detailed morphological changes of one macro-assemblage creature changing into another macro-assemblage creature.

What the fossil record shows is only different Kinds of creatures and variations within each Kind. That's it: no detailed fossils found over time showing one Kind of creature changing into a different Kind.

Since evolution is not a fact by evidence it can only be claimed to occur by conjecture. It is a belief.

The below is an example of what is presented as evolution in textbooks and publications: macro-assemblages of creatures said to evolve from one macro-assemblage creature to the next.

View attachment 242931

Where are the fossils - for any macro-assemblage grouping - that show clear sequences of morphological changes as one macro-assemblage creature changes into the next (such as Pakicetidae changed/evolved into Ambulocetidae in the above illustration)?

The theory of evolution has run into a brick wall.

Over the past 160 years, since release of Darwin's Origin of Species, the fossils that were to be found inbetween known creatures, showing the anticipated detailed morphological changes sequence of creatures that occurred between them, have not been found.

The fossils that are to prove evolution happened are missing. It looks like they never occurred.

Has any evolutionist told you about this? Is this something evolutionists face up to in their literature?

Has any evolutionist or evolutionists publication mentioned that it takes conjecture and belief to state evolution occurred?

Or have the godless derived and over promoted a "no Creator needed" theory that lacks firsthand evidence after 160 years has passed?

Does anyone know if that ambulocetida thing barked like a dog?

 

[Ophiolite]

Evolution has masqueraded as ‘fact’ for so long now that proponents are convinced the proof has already been provided... it’s almost comical.

Explain the origin of ring species.

 

[inquiring mind]

Explain the origin of ring species.

It’s all right there in Wikipedia:

“… The biologist Ernst Mayr championed the concept of ring species, claiming that it unequivocally demonstrated the process of speciation.[10] A ring species is an alternative model to allopatric speciation, "illustrating how new species can arise through 'circular overlap', without interruption of gene flow through intervening populations…"[11] However, Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr point out that rings species more closely model parapatric speciation.[8]

Ring species often attract the interests of evolutionary biologists, systematists, and researchers of speciation leading to both thought provoking ideas and confusion concerning their definition.[12] Contemporary scholars recognize that examples in nature have proved rare due to various factors such as limitations in taxonomic delineation[13] or, "taxonomic zeal"[10]—explained by the fact that taxonomists classify organisms into "species", while ring species often cannot fit this definition.[12] Other reasons such as gene flow interruption from "vicariate divergence" and fragmented populations due to climate instability have also been cited.[10]

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem for those seeking to divide the living world into discrete species. All that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations; if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species. The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours)…”

Ring species looks like another TicTac type argument to me... a whole lot of 'questionable stuff' as far as proving anything. I'll stick with the 'if it can breed it is the same Kind' definition.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It’s all right there in Wikipedia:

“… The biologist Ernst Mayr championed the concept of ring species, claiming that it unequivocally demonstrated the process of speciation.[10] A ring species is an alternative model to allopatric speciation, "illustrating how new species can arise through 'circular overlap', without interruption of gene flow through intervening populations…"[11] However, Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr point out that rings species more closely model parapatric speciation.[8]

Ring species often attract the interests of evolutionary biologists, systematists, and researchers of speciation leading to both thought provoking ideas and confusion concerning their definition.[12] Contemporary scholars recognize that examples in nature have proved rare due to various factors such as limitations in taxonomic delineation[13] or, "taxonomic zeal"[10]—explained by the fact that taxonomists classify organisms into "species", while ring species often cannot fit this definition.[12] Other reasons such as gene flow interruption from "vicariate divergence" and fragmented populations due to climate instability have also been cited.[10]

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem for those seeking to divide the living world into discrete species. All that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations; if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species. The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours)…”

Ring species looks like another TicTac type argument to me... a whole lot of 'questionable stuff' as far as proving anything. I'll stick with the 'if it can breed it is the same Kind' definition.

I don't think Ophiolite was being clear with his question: can YOU explain the origin of ring species?

Although considering the above, I don't think you can.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When people who have heard evolution is a fact, once they learn the very proof that should exist to make it a fact is missing, how will many react?

The genetic record makes common ancestry of species a genetic fact.
Evolution theory is a model that explains that fact and which is supported by a multitude of independent lines of evidence, of which the fossil record is just one - and not even the best one at that.

Become open to other ways life could have come about?

Evolution isn't about the origins of life.

Follow the crowd (accept and become a group-think)?

Follow the evidence.

Follow what men say (continue to follow men)?

Since humans are the only ones that actually say things, it's kind of hard to follow what anything other then a human says....

But no, one doesn't follow what men say at face value either.
You follow what men say, when it can be shown that what they say is accurate enough to follow.


So in summary, this "part 2" thread seems to be repeating the exact same lies, misinformation and nonsense as part 1.