Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

Ok.

Now you need to define what you mean by "detailed & progressive".

When is a sequence of fossils "detailed and progressive" enough for you?
How is it measured?

For example, see this nice sequence here showing how ancestral "feet" transitioned into whale "flippers":

View attachment 241775

Or see this sequence here showing how the nostrils at the front of the ancestral species moved to the top of the skull in present day sea descendants:

View attachment 241776

Or this sequences showing the progressive enlargement of the brain in primates leading upto homo sapiens:

View attachment 241777

Or this sequence here showing the progressive evolution of horses:

View attachment 241778


So please explain, what is missing here?
Why aren't these "detailed and progressive"?
How should they change for them to be "detailed and progressive" enough for your taste?

Let's go all the way here.

I'm honestly and genuinly asking. I'm determined to find out what exactly you expect from the fossil record in order for you to acknowledge that it shows macro evolution has taken place.


Note that that is the ONLY thing I'm trying to understand here. I'm not on some quest to make you accept evolution. I'm not on some quest to have you acknowledge that we already have such fossils. I'm JUST trying to understand what you are really asking for and how you evaluate what you have been given.

Sorry, they can label them 'TicTac-like transitional species' all they want, but it's a long way from actually showing that 'man' evolved from anything other than 'man.'

 

[inquiring mind]

It sounds like 2 things here.
First, it sounds like you are saying that there are just not "enough" fossils to conclusively conclude a macro evolutionary history of life.

The OP addresses 'man' specifically, but yes, True.

You seem to be saying that it COULD be correct, but that, to your taste at least, not enough fossils have been found to be able to determine it to be correct conclusively. Is that right?

I'm saying no convincing fossils will be found, because they do not exist.

Second, while I like speedwell's analogy, it's also incomplete, as it ONLY deals with the fossil record.

In reality, the fossil record is just one of the MANY independent lines of evidence in support of evolution - and it's not even the strongest one. At all.

We haven't even touched on the other lines of evidence in this discussion.......

Really?... I'm sure we've covered them in the thread, including DNA and migration way back there somewhere.

 

[inquiring mind]

You may well think so, but many paleontologists disagree. But the point is, while there may not be a sufficient number of pieces in place to convince you that the picture is fully characterized, there are plenty enough to tell us what the picture is not, and it is not a picture of recent special creation.

I disagree with your conclusion of 'no Creation.' Even for those without faith, the lack of evidence for your macro evolution picture, in some ways, necessitates it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I disagree with your conclusion of 'no Creation.' Even for those without faith, the lack of evidence for your macro evolution picture, in some ways, necessitates it.

Not at all. Firstly, you have not ONCE shown that 'macro evolution' doesn't occur. You've just handwaved off any evidence that you don't like.
Secondly, even IF the theory of evolution is ultimately shown to be wrong, that does not automatically mean that Creationism is correct. You would still need to provide evidence for Creationism, and I have yet once to see anyone do so.

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree with your conclusion of 'no Creation.' Even for those without faith, the lack of evidence for your macro evolution picture, in some ways, necessitates it.

You may think there is not enough evidence for macroevolution, but there is no evidence at all for recent special creation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why are you shying away from the issue? This is the theory I choose:

The theory of evolution explains the change in allele frequency over time in the population of organisms, due to natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow.

See, you can even go with microevolution, which I assume you accept, if you want.

OK, explain your exact theory, and all it's aspects, or is it going to be too involved or complicated? If so, try something a little more simple....either way is fine with me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here's what you sound like:

View attachment 241772

That's lame, when you have never proved you have any "evidence" to begin with, and admittedly you cannot prove it, because you cannot prove evolution, yet you ASSUME just as the picture states, you have evidence when, in reality Nye's "evidence" is just as much "nothing" as you claim Ham's is.

You have to prove evolution is a fact, before you can prove your so-called evidence IS evidence, otherwise your evidence is all spin.

 

[46AND2]

OK, explain your exact theory, and all it's aspects, or is it going to be too involved or complicated? If so, try something a little more simple....either way is fine with me.

Ok, but we will have to establish a thing or two first: Do you agree that we empirically observe allele frequencies in a population change over time?

For the purposes of this exercise, assume that I am always talking about microevolution (or adaptation, if you prefer), and I will attempt to word my statements accordingly.

 

[pitabread]

Ok, but we will have to establish a thing or two first: Do you agree that we empirically observe allele frequencies in a population change over time?

For the purposes of this exercise, assume that I am always talking about microevolution (or adaptation, if you prefer), and I will attempt to word my statements accordingly.

FYI, you're falling into a bit of a trap here. I already know how this ends...

 

[46AND2]

FYI, you're falling into a bit of a trap here. I already know how this ends...

Already planned for it.

 

[Ophiolite]

You would still need to provide evidence for Creationism, and I have yet once to see anyone do so.

but there is no evidence at all for recent special creation.

Most will think I am being pedantic and nit-picking. Fair enough. I am. However, I dislike absolute statements, especially when they are incorrect. Normally I restrain myself and let this particular one pass, but finding it present in two adjacent posts was too much for my self control.

If there was an act of creation we would expect to find things. We do. That is evidence. It's also evidence for other possibilities, but the presence of "things" is consistent with what we would expect from creation. It is very inconclusive evidence, but evidence nevertheless.

 

[Speedwell]

Most will think I am being pedantic and nit-picking. Fair enough. I am. However, I dislike absolute statements, especially when they are incorrect. Normally I restrain myself and let this particular one pass, but finding it present in two adjacent posts was too much for my self control.

If there was an act of creation we would expect to find things. We do. That is evidence. It's also evidence for other possibilities, but the presence of "things" is consistent with what we would expect from creation. It is very inconclusive evidence, but evidence nevertheless.

But what is the evidence that this act of creation took place in 4004 BC rather than at a more distant time?

I understand your criticism, but keep in mind that the discussion here is not about the existence of God, or whether God created the universe--theists believe it, atheists do not--but about whether the universe came into existence according to a literal reading of Genesis or not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ok, but we will have to establish a thing or two first: Do you agree that we empirically observe allele frequencies in a population change over time?

For the purposes of this exercise, assume that I am always talking about microevolution (or adaptation, if you prefer), and I will attempt to word my statements accordingly.

That's all fine, and doesn't matter if I agree or not, just make sure you give a full explanation of everything you might even think I might not be aware of. Judging from some of the accusations here, I'm sure you want me to understand the science before I proceed, so make me understand. If I have a problem with something, I'll certainly let you know what and why.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . I just can’t understand why you can’t see this as a ‘brick wall’ in that regard. Macro Evolutionists will never find such 'detailed & progressive evidence' that would convincingly and overwhelmingly support their claim... because it’s not there.

You keep refusing to share what would, in fact, for you, constitute detailed and progressive evidence that would convincingly support the claim of evolution. It is our suspicion you will always say whatever is submitted is insufficient, regardless of the actual merits of the evidence. Can you show us wrong, by telling us what WOULD be sufficient?

 

[inquiring mind]

But what is the evidence that this act of creation took place in 4004 BC rather than at a more distant time?

I understand your criticism, but keep in mind that the discussion here is not about the existence of God, or whether God created the universe--theists believe it, atheists do not--but about whether the universe came into existence according to a literal reading of Genesis or not.

Who says that Creation took place in 4004 BC? There is no date for Creation listed anywhere in Genesis that I'm aware of. God’s intervention didn't require or have to adhere to timetables, such as we understand.

 

[inquiring mind]

You keep refusing to share what would, in fact, for you, constitute detailed and progressive evidence that would convincingly support the claim of evolution. It is our suspicion you will always say whatever is submitted is insufficient, regardless of the actual merits of the evidence. Can you show us wrong, by telling us what WOULD be sufficient?

No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists. Why would I try to describe something that does not exist... that is an endeavor for those of you who incorrectly think it does.

 

[Speedwell]

Who says that Creation took place in 4004 BC? There is no date for Creation listed anywhere in Genesis that I'm aware of. God’s intervention didn't require or have to adhere to timetables, such as we understand.

So you're happy with 13.8 billion years?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists. Why would I try to describe something that does not exist... that is an endeavor for those of you who incorrectly think it does.

We agree, then, that no matter what evidence is ever submitted to you supporting evolution you will not agree the evidence supports evolution. That makes a nice tidy ending to this discussion.

 

[inquiring mind]

We agree, then, that no matter what evidence is ever submitted to you supporting evolution you will not agree the evidence supports evolution. That makes a nice tidy ending to this discussion.

You can't provide any detailed progressive evidence of 'macro evolution' because it's not supported by the fossil record... so you can call it quits if you like.

 

[inquiring mind]

So you're happy with 13.8 billion years?

God could have used any number of years, including gap, during His Creation. It's beyond my understanding.