Evolution's Brick Wall

Status
Not open for further replies.

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.'

Please just answer the question I asked.
Your post is not at all a response to the post you are quoting....

You said that fossils need to be "detailed and progressive".
I gave you a very limited set of some sequential sequences of fossils, showing the progression of how feet of a land mammal became the flippers of a whale, how primate skull morphed over time to accomodate for brain enlargement, etc.

The question is: what is wrong with these fossils?
How are they not "progressive and detailed"?
What is missing? How should these sequences be changed before you'll call them "detailed and progressive"?

If you can't answer these questions, then I'm going to have to conclude that your mentioning of "detailed and progressive" is just a cop-out of which you don't even know yourself what you mean by it.

Like I said: let's go all the way here.

So please, just answer the questions. I'm genuinely trying to understand here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm saying no convincing fossils will be found, because they do not exist.

And you know this, how?

Also, if by "convincing" you mean "detailed and progressive" - you have yet to explain what exactly you mean by that.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

Read the question in the picture and read the responses.
It's a point about intellectual honesty - not about who is correct or not.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

You complaing that the presented evidence for evolution isn't "enough". It's not "detailed and progressive enough" - your own words.

So when you say that, CLEARLY you must have an idea of what constitutes "detailed and progressive enough". Why do you categorically refuse to share with us what that idea is?

Could it perhaps be that you are just lying and being intellectually dishonest?
Your continued refusal to explain yourself, leads only to that conclusion you know..............
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

What do you mean with "detailed and progressive evidence"?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What I gather from reading here this just seems to be more ‘indirect evidence’ that the science community may also be trying to change the definition of to ‘empirical evidence.’ Most likely another Tic Tac argument.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/04/sorry_ring_spec/


I note you are doing your outmost best again to avoid addressing the obvious problems with your views.


Once again, I will refer you back to the very observable reality of ring species... When all neighbouring populations can happily interbreed, until you get to the end of the line where both "branches" of interbreeding populations meet again at the end of the geographic barrier, only to find out that they can NOT interbreed.

And that in light of your "kind" definition, this is extremely problematic, as I have clearly explained.


Whenever you are ready to address this obvious problem and explain how it can be so.....


pssst: meanwhile, (macro)evolution not only explains this, but actually expects such geographic distribution of species...................................
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
God could have used any number of years, including gap, during His Creation. It's beyond my understanding.
God could also have used evolution, as many Christians believe.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟675,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
God could also have used evolution, as many Christians believe.

also @ DogmaHunter and his barrage of questions; @ Paul of Eugene OR

God may have used some form of micro evolution in His design for survival and adaptation, but despite your group's strategy of a continual game of more questions to keep us on the defensive (instead of answering ours), there is just no physical evidence in the fossil record that supports macro evolution (as the OP states, nothing showing any conclusive evidence of ape to man transitioning).

We are asked over and over to define the simplest of expressions; what does Kind mean; what do you mean by this and what do you mean by that, when it is obvious. ‘Kind’ has been explained and argued numerous times, 'Micro & Macro' differentiated, ‘Detailed & Progressive’ is obvious. In return all we are presented with are isolated TicTac cases, how the feet of something appear to have turned into flippers and vice versa, or how a primate skull morphed over time to accommodate a larger brain.

You like to make your argument of macro evolution completely supported and factual when it isn’t. When some can’t and are called out on it, they resort to calling myself and others liars or intellectually dishonest. It’s really ridiculous... what you need to do is stop calling me and others here evasive, and just admit that ‘your belief’ in macro evolution cannot be put over the hump or that the belief can’t get around the brick wall, just like the OP states, because there is nothing in the fossil record to support it.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
‘Kind’ has been explained and argued numerous times, 'Micro & Macro' differentiated, ‘Detailed & Progressive’ is obvious.

Obviously it's not obvious, since we can't seem to agree on it.
You STILL have not answered my question.

I posted a couple of fossil sequences earlier.
I asked you what is missing in those sequences. How are those not "detailed & progressive" enough for you?
What should be added or changed, before you'll consider it "detailed & progressive" enough?

Why can't you answer this question?


Concerning your definition of "kind", you still haven't addressed the subject of ring species either. I explained that in quite some detail as well.....
If "kind" are those populations that can interbreed, how does that then work for ring species, where according to that definition they should ALL be the same species, yet those at the end of the geographical barrier are not able to reproduce with eachother?



Once more I will explicitly say that the goal here is NOT to convince you of evolution or whatever...

The point / goal is to clarify what exactly your objections are and to properly define the terms you use.....

Because as it stands, I have NO IDEA what your objection to the fossil record is.
And your definition of "kind" seems to be having serious problems in ring species.

Neither have been addressed by you.


So, once more:
- what is missing from the fossil sequences to be "detailed and progressive"? be specific.
- how does your definition of "kind" (can interbreed = same kind) work in ring species?



Continued failure to address these points only expose the meaninglessness of your objections, terms and arguments.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
also @ DogmaHunter and his barrage of questions; @ Paul of Eugene OR

God may have used some form of micro evolution in His design for survival and adaptation, but despite your group's strategy of a continual game of more questions to keep us on the defensive...
Who is "us" and why are you on the defensive?
We are asked over and over to define the simplest of expressions; what does Kind mean; what do you mean by this and what do you mean by that, when it is obvious. ‘Kind’ has been explained and argued numerous times...
I am not aware that a satisfactory definition of "kind" as a taxon has ever been presented. Lexically, "kind" is a relative qualifier, not a taxon, and that is the way it is used in the Bible.

You like to make your argument of macro evolution completely supported and factual when it isn’t. When some can’t and are called out on it, they resort to calling myself and others liars or intellectually dishonest. It’s really ridiculous... what you need to do is stop calling me and others here evasive, and just admit that ‘your belief’ in macro evolution cannot be put over the hump or that the belief can’t get around the brick wall, just like the OP states, because there is nothing in the fossil record to support it.
Over what "hump?" Macroevolution is confirmed by all the physical evidence, both paleontological and genetic, which has so far been discovered and contradicted by none of it. That's all you get; that's how science works. If you want to overturn the theory of you have to produce some evidence which it does not explain. Whining about how there is not enough confirming evidence to satisfy some vague standard of your own won't do it.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
also @ DogmaHunter and his barrage of questions; @ Paul of Eugene OR

God may have used some form of micro evolution in His design for survival and adaptation, but despite your group's strategy of a continual game of more questions to keep us on the defensive (instead of answering ours), there is just no physical evidence in the fossil record that supports macro evolution (as the OP states, nothing showing any conclusive evidence of ape to man transitioning).

We are asked over and over to define the simplest of expressions; what does Kind mean; what do you mean by this and what do you mean by that, when it is obvious. ‘Kind’ has been explained and argued numerous times, 'Micro & Macro' differentiated, ‘Detailed & Progressive’ is obvious. In return all we are presented with are isolated TicTac cases, how the feet of something appear to have turned into flippers and vice versa, or how a primate skull morphed over time to accommodate a larger brain.

You like to make your argument of macro evolution completely supported and factual when it isn’t. When some can’t and are called out on it, they resort to calling myself and others liars or intellectually dishonest. It’s really ridiculous... what you need to do is stop calling me and others here evasive, and just admit that ‘your belief’ in macro evolution cannot be put over the hump or that the belief can’t get around the brick wall, just like the OP states, because there is nothing in the fossil record to support it.

Science requires intellectual honesty and clear communication, in that is the basic requirement that the terms used are clearly defined. Fuzzy definitions is not helpful when describing physical reality.

That you already think you know the answer is pretty telling, that means that you are not open for debate, only dogma. That is not a good thing.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.
The above denial of fossil support for evolution was written by a human with a nerve that goes all the way down from his brain via the neck to the heart, loops around the arteries there, and back up to the larynx. This odd path doesn't bother us humans so much, but its really weird to see that happening in the giraffe. All us four limbed land animals are stuck with that path ever since it was established in the ancient fish ancestral species; there, it made sense. Evolution never managed to evolve a shorter path because of the loop around the aorta. It is yet one more reminder in our own bodies of our evolutionary past, it is also evidence against design species by species or kind by kind.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,257
6,447
29
Wales
✟349,850.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
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.

Now that's a claim that you have never been able to support even once.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,003
69
USA
✟585,394.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Read the question in the picture and read the responses.
It's a point about intellectual honesty - not about who is correct or not.


Thanks, that makes a difference., but it is a lot about who is correct or not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟179,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
4309534_orig.jpg


So you just now conceded chimpanzees are the same kind as homo sapiens.
No.

You have Kinds and variations in Kinds.

It is the course of learning that fossils that the supposed sequences of fossils between different Kinds do not exist in the fossil record.

The brickwall is, how over the past +100 years each fossil found is either a different Kind or a variation within a Kind. No fill-in-the-gap fossils have been found that show the sequences of detailed morphological changes inbetween textbook and publication posted macro-assemblages Kinds.

Yes, conjecture is needed to connnect one different creature changing into another different creature. The fossils between different Kinds (that should show the detailed steps of evolution) are missing.

It is time, in 2018, for evolutionists to face up to how the fossils they find do not fit inbetween known fossils to show steps of evolution in greater detail. That is not happening when we find fossils. There are zero detailed fossil sequences that exist between lifeforms to prove evolution. Zero proof of evolution has occurred. Without factual proof evolution is a belief. It is a faith. Evolutionists walk by faith.

The end of evolution as being a fact has come. The fossil record now shows evolution never happened; evolution requires faith. I saw this when in college. I saw where faith, not scientific evidence, was set before me to accept and walk in. That made me open that there could be a Creator - since faith is required to be applied to something. In checking out the Creator I was baptized by the Holy Spirit. Do you know what happens when the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes upon one?

Need I say faith towards the Creator and how He leads by illuminating select verses us the High Way to walk and talk. This dust realm does not compare to His Realm in our midst.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟179,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let's just cut to the chase.

Describe what kind of tansitional fossil(s) you would need to be presented with in order to agree that they support the idea of "macro evolution".

If you can't answer that question, this entire thread, and your objections, are meaningless.

So go. Describe the kind of transitional fossils you would require and we'll go from there.
You have missed the main topic of this thread.

Dogma, the fossils that have been found are either different creatures (different Kinds of lifeforms) or are variations within Kinds (like illustrations of breeds of dogs shows).

We are saying, now that it is 2018, the fossils we have unearthed over the past +100 years, we have not found the fossils that are inbetween existing fossils that shows the actual step-by-step morphological changes from one Kind evolving into a different Kind. Over the past +100 years we have not found the fossil sequences that should be inbetween any two different lifeforms (Kinds).

All we have found are different creatures (Kinds) and variations within one creature (Kind: like dog breed illustation).

As the main topic, there have been zero sequences of fossils between lifeforms found that shows evolution happened. No step-by-step fossil sequences showing the detailed morphological changes between lifeform Kinds. Zero fossil sequences that proves evolution has occurred.

As shown in the below macro-assemblages illustration of fossils, all that is presented is different creatures.

As the main topic, there are zero fossils unearthed that fit inbetween any of the macro-assemblages evolutionists present. We see macro-assemblages but zero fossils that fit inbetween them that shows the claimed evolution of step-by-step detailed morphological changes.

Screenshot_20180825-193707.jpg


The fossil evidence that should prove evolution happened is missing. No detailed fossil between creatures, such as the macro-assemblage fossils above.

The result is that conjecture is required to claim evolution happened: to claim that one Kind of creature evolved into a another Kind of creature.

Belief that evolution happened is where evolutionists stand. They accept evolution by faith, not fossil record evidence.

Evolution is in a serious dilemma. We now have evidence that it does not exist. We have evidence that one creature has not evolved into another creature.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,257
6,447
29
Wales
✟349,850.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
No.

You have Kinds and variations in Kinds.

It is the course of learning that fossils that the supposed sequences of fossils between different Kinds do not exist in the fossil record.

The brickwall is, how over the past +100 years each fossil found is either a different Kind or a variation within a Kind. No fill-in-the-gap fossils have been found that show the sequences of detailed morphological changes inbetween textbook and publication posted macro-assemblages Kinds.

Yes, conjecture is needed to connnect one different creature changing into another different creature. The fossils between different Kinds (that should show the detailed steps of evolution) are missing.

It is time, in 2018, for evolutionists to face up to how the fossils they find do not fit inbetween known fossils to show steps of evolution in greater detail. That is not happening when we find fossils. There are zero detailed fossil sequences that exist between lifeforms to prove evolution. Zero proof of evolution has occurred. Without factual proof evolution is a belief. It is a faith. Evolutionists walk by faith.

The end of evolution as being a fact has come. The fossil record now shows evolution never happened; evolution requires faith. I saw this when in college. I saw where faith, not scientific evidence, was set before me to accept and walk in. That made me open that there could be a Creator - since faith is required to be applied to something. In checking out the Creator I was baptized by the Holy Spirit. Do you know what happens when the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes upon one?

Need I say faith towards the Creator and how He leads by illuminating select verses us the High Way to walk and talk. This dust realm does not compare to His Realm in our midst.

Why do you keep lying like this?! What gives you, a single anonymous user on the internet, more weight than ALL of the scientists in the world and over 150 years of science? What?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.

The theory of evolution explains the observation that the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time with these 4 mechanisms:

1. Natural selection: is the idea that certain inheritable traits allow some members of the population to live longer and/or produce more offspring in response to the environment they live in. This can be accomplished in several different ways. A trait might give some members of the population an advantage in dealing with cold weather (thicker pelts, for example), or allow them to be more appealing to the opposite gender (more colorful plumage, for example), or keep them hidden or better able to fight off predators (skin/fur color, for example). So basically, the individuals who possess these traits become more prevalent within their community over time, because they reproduce at a higher rate; fewer are killed off before reproducing, or more mates are found, producing babies at a higher rate.

Many studies have been done both in the lab, and in nature to test whether this effect indeed has an effect in proliferating those traits. Results confirm the mechanism. Additionally, the effect can be manufactured and enhanced artificially by purposely introducing an environmental pressure that the population has to deal with.

2. Mutation: is the mechanism by which traits arise, by causing a variant of a particular gene (an allele), which is sometimes expressed phenotypically (changed characteristics or traits). For example, blue eyes are a result of a mutation which limits the melanin produced in the iris of the eye. Germ line mutations are mutations that are passed on to successive generations (as opposed to somatic mutations), and it is these mutations which effect the frequency in which they succeed (or fail) within a population.

Though mutations happen randomly, the rate at which they spread through a population is usually (see genetic drift) not random due to the fact that once they do occur, natural selection acts upon it making it more or less likely that the organisms with the mutation reproduce successfully.

3. Genetic drift: sometimes a trait arises which does not necessarily give the organism a better or worse chance of surviving and reproducing, yet still proliferates within the population. This typically happens more in small populations, since it is easier for a trait to spread throughout the smaller number of individuals. Basically, these are just "lucky" traits that happen to spread throughout the population, due to the fact that the organisms with these traits reproduced more frequently, either due to existing along side other traits which act normally under natural selection, or, as in the case with bottle necks, the lack of diverse mating options.

4. Gene flow: describes the transfer of genes which are passed on from one population to another. For example, pollen from one population of a plant can be transported long distances interacting with a different population.

If there is a high rate of gene flow between populations, then this hinders the divergence between the two populations, as the arisen traits in each population are shared with each other. Likewise, a low rate of gene transfer will gradually cause the populations to further diverge, as new traits are not shared between them.

Horizontal gene transfer is when genes are shared asexually. For example, through introduction by viruses, or conjugation which is where bacteria which come in to contact share genetic material.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.