Evolution's Brick Wall

[tas8831]

As per OP, many are not facing up to the missing evidence that evolution ever happened.

As per the OP, it contains a series of assertions premised on ignorance of not only the fossil record, but on how fossils form, where they are found, etc.

You keep harping on what you from your position of ignorance and malice (bolstered by obviously embellished or even fabricated claims of relevant education in these areas) declare to be "missing" evidence while ignoring the evidence that DOES exist.
And as I have noted several times - you never seem to present evidence FOR your Scripture based 'history' - you only ever attack strawmen and misrepresentations of evolution.

Please show one sequence of fossils between creatures that historically display detailed morphological changes from said first lifeform changing into said second lifeform over time.

I asked you before and, as is your way, you bailed and could not address this - what do you mean "changing"?
I know you have been shown several examples that legitimate, actually educated and experienced people accept as evidence of this, you merely reject for religious desperation reasons - but you can never explain why you seek some specific "sequence".

Clearly, YOU, like the thread starter, do not know much about fossilization or subsequent geology. You appear to believe that all living things fossilize and that after fossilization, they remain undisturbed for all time.

As such, is your strawman based on ignorance or malice?

Such as an X into a deer.

Such as Adam into Moses.
Where are THOSE fossils?

No fossil intermediates between a supposed recent lineage? NO EVIDENCE? Ha! Scripture is obviously false.

See? I can use your own flawed 'reasoning' against you.

Or an X into a Y.

If you cannot, than there is zero fossil record proof evolution ever happened . Not one fossil sequence proof over all of geologic time.

Non sequitur.

Especially since you do not even know what to expect.

You pretended in another thread to understand molecular biology, but you 1. simply ignored genetic evidence for common descent that I presented to you and 2. clearly posses the naive notion that morphological changes must proceed via small increments from generation to generation.
Which means that you are ignorant of what development actually produces - coupled with your take on what the fossil record must present us and you have literally nothing more than a malicious strawman fallacy.

Read and learn - or in your case, read and ignore only to make the same dishonest, incompetent assertions over and over:

https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/sequence-transitional-fossils

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html

https://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html


Now, in order for me to accept that Genesis is history, show me the unbroken lineage, i.e., all of the skeletal remains, of all of your deceased ancestors back to Adam. Failure to do so will proved Genesis false.

Zero.

That means evolution is not based on actual fossil record evidence- but is based on conjecture.

Are you ready to face this fact?

No - because it is not a fact, it is a fantasy.

Are you ready to face the fact that fossils are - get this - NOT the only evidence for evolution?

And hey, bro - remember when you claimed that "billions" of fossils have been found and 'inspected'? That was hilarious - especially when you then ignored all requests for support for such a silly claim! And you keep claiming that there is NO evidence for evolution, when actually educated and sensible creationists admit otherwise! Who are YOU???

And it is painfully easy to demonstrate that you ignore evidence over and over and over... Then declare that none exists. Trolling? Or just dishonest and desperate?

 

[tas8831]

View attachment 237453

View attachment 237454

View attachment 237455

View attachment 237456


Still lying about the evidence, I see...

Yup.

I don't understand these people- their assertions are repeatedly falsified, they are repeatedly presented with that which they declare they have never seen - and these things are EASILY demonstrated.
Who do they think they are fooling? Do they really think nobody will see their dishonesty? Their sad hubris and desperation?

I almost feel sorry for them. Then I read their posts and see how aggressively malicious and dishonest they can be.

 

[NBB]

Evolution is silly, you just can't throw random changes to something like an amoeba and that it could be perfected to the pont of creating animals and humans.
Even within trillions of years.

RANDOM CHANGES DON'T BUILD ANYTHING GOOD. This should be common sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

If genetics defines morphology, then if you have an endless number of mutations, inevitably, your morphology will change, be it from an amoeba to a human (an amoeba is an animal so saying that an animal could mutate into an animal is certainly possible) or any other change.

So unless young earth creationists or evolution deniers can provide evidence for some sort of barrier or limitation that would stop the accumulation of these genetic changes, they have no argument.

This ^ is common sense.

 

[NBB]

If genetics defines morphology, then if you have an endless number of mutations, inevitably, your morphology will change, be it from an amoeba to a human (an amoeba is an animal so saying that an animal could mutate into an animal is certainly possible) or any other change.

So unless young earth creationists or evolution deniers can provide evidence for some sort of barrier or limitation that would stop the accumulation of these genetic changes, they have no argument.

This ^ is common sense.

Change into what? there no guidance here, evolution can't construct humans with random changes. You believe evolution can create eyes with random changes all millions of changes contributing to one specific goal, this is silly (oops there no even goals in evolution). You won't get this.

 

[NBB]

Evolution implies than a sort of amoeba gained sight, digestion, heart, brain, all this needed to form while the animal were able to survive anyway with halfway of them done or without some of them for a period. This is crazy. (which i don't know how could one tiny part of brain could of help, what was created first the nerves or a tiny part of the brain that it is connected to the spine by the way). This is impossible. The human body is so obviously engineered, Even evo people can't avoid praising this 'beautiful works of engineering'.

Random changes can't build.

 

[NBB]

If genetics defines morphology, then if you have an endless number of mutations, inevitably, your morphology will change, be it from an amoeba to a human (an amoeba is an animal so saying that an animal could mutate into an animal is certainly possible) or any other change.

So unless young earth creationists or evolution deniers can provide evidence for some sort of barrier or limitation that would stop the accumulation of these genetic changes, they have no argument.

This ^ is common sense.

Random changes accumulate into somewhat different existing body parts already (if they are benign), not useful whole new body parts.

 

[Job 33:6]

Random changes accumulate into somewhat different existing body parts already (if they are benign), not useful whole new body parts.

Are you aware of any mechanism which would stop the accumulation of fixated beneficial mutations?

 

[NBB]

Are you aware of any mechanism which would stop the accumulation of fixated beneficial mutations?

No, all i know random changes (mutation) can't build new useful good things like organs and all of them working together. Is like evolution took into account how one organ would interact with the other without even trying.

 

[Kadeem Spence]

That makes zero sense. If science doesn't reveal hard facts then it's science fiction until proven otherwise.

truth science fiction is unproven science

 

[Kadeem Spence]

No, all i know random changes (mutation) can't build new useful good things like organs and all of them working together. Is like evolution took into account how one organ would interact with the other without even trying.

interesting

 

[Job 33:6]

No, all i know random changes (mutation) can't build new useful good things like organs and all of them working together. Is like evolution took into account how one organ would interact with the other without even trying.

So, the answer is no. You are unaware of any mechanism which would halt an accumulation of fixated mutations.

So you are unaware of any mechanism which would essentially stop something from genetically changing. And if something does not genetically stop changing, its morphology will not stop changing either, as morphology is a product of genetics.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution implies than a sort of amoeba gained sight, digestion, heart, brain, all this needed to form while the animal were able to survive anyway with halfway of them done or without some of them for a period. This is crazy.

Not really when you consider the myriad of biological forms in existence all with varying degrees and implementations of different biological systems.

This is impossible. The human body is so obviously engineered, Even evo people can't avoid praising this 'beautiful works of engineering'.

An argument from incredulity is not a good argument. Just because you can't fathom how the human body is the result of evolution doesn't mean that's it's deliberately engineered.

Random changes can't build.

When combined with selective processes, they certainly can. Evolution is, in effect, a recursive algorithm and recursive algorithms can generate complexity from simple rules.

You can see the same thing with respect to genetic algorithms used in engineering and computer science.

 

[pitabread]

RANDOM CHANGES DON'T BUILD ANYTHING GOOD. This should be common sense.

Tell that to NASA. They used evolution to design an antenna for their space craft and achieved superior results compared to designing them manually:

In addition to being the first evolved hardware in space, our evolved antennas demonstrate several advantages over the conventionally designed antennas and manual design in general. The evolutionary algorithms we used were not limited to variations of previously developed antenna shapes but generated and tested thousands of completely new types of designs, many of which have unusual structures that expert antenna designers would not be likely to produce. By exploring such a wide range of designs EAs may be able to produce designs of previously unachievable performance. ​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

 

[Ophiolite]

Evolution is silly, you just can't throw random changes to something like an amoeba and that it could be perfected to the pont of creating animals and humans.
Even within trillions of years.

RANDOM CHANGES DON'T BUILD ANYTHING GOOD. This should be common sense.

Here is something for you to reflect on, quietly, when you have a moment. Your objections, allegedly based on common sense, take no account of the evidence. Have you studied, for a period of years, genetics, biology, statistics, palaeonotolgy and the like? If not, your "common sense" conclusion is worth less than a stuffed aardvark with a missing tail. If you are basing your conclusions of what you have read in Creationist literature, I suggest you consider the possibility that they've spent rather too much time with stuffed aardvarks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evolution is silly, you just can't throw random changes to something like an amoeba and that it could be perfected to the pont of creating animals and humans.
Even within trillions of years.

RANDOM CHANGES DON'T BUILD ANYTHING GOOD. This should be common sense.

The mutations in a population are random, but what individuals live long enough to reproduce isn't random. Let's say 100,000 mice are born, each with just 5 mutations each, and 99% of those mutations have no benefits to survival. That's still 5,000 mutations that benefit survival among 100,000 individuals. Given that mice are low on the food chain and many die before reaching maturity, it is easy to see how the slight advantages that increase survival chances can rapidly spread through such a population. And then it happens over and over again.

Beneficial mutations are demonstrable, and the 1% beneficial mutations I used in my example doesn't inflate their proportion to neutral and detrimental mutations at all. Given the frequency at which mutations occur, it is not only likely that beneficial mutations would occur, but it is an inevitability.

Not only that, but whether or not a mutation is beneficial depends on context. Let's say there is a mutation in fish that if it occurs, results in normal, healthy fish except that they never develop eyes. You might conclude automatically that such a mutation is obviously detrimental in all contexts, but this is not the case. If this fish population is stranded in a subterranean pool, there would be no light to see with anyways, making the formation of eyes a useless expense of energy and brain specialization. In a context in which sight is useless, losing the eyes is a beneficial outcome.

 

[Heissonear]

View attachment 237453

View attachment 237454

View attachment 237455

View attachment 237456


Still lying about the evidence, I see...

I hate to break the news, but like presented in the 1800's and 1900's, even in paleontology texts, you have simply provided macro-assemblages.

Did you know better than resort to macro-assemblages?

Again, where are the morphological details between the macro-assemblages you posted?

As per OP, evolution and evolutionists have hit a brick wall. They are still without fossil sequences showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record. Such as an X to a Y.

You need to take a step back and survey what evolutionist state verses present.

Evolution is based on conjecture. Not on one fossil sequence proving evolution has occurred. Not one fossil sequence.

 

[Heissonear]

The mutations in a population are random, but what individuals live long enough to reproduce isn't random. Let's say 100,000 mice are born, each with just 5 mutations each, and 99% of those mutations have no benefits to survival. That's still 5,000 mutations that benefit survival among 100,000 individuals. Given that mice are low on the food chain and many die before reaching maturity, it is easy to see how the slight advantages that increase survival chances can rapidly spread through such a population. And then it happens over and over again.

Beneficial mutations are demonstrable, and the 1% beneficial mutations I used in my example doesn't inflate their proportion to neutral and detrimental mutations at all. Given the frequency at which mutations occur, it is not only likely that beneficial mutations would occur, but it is an inevitability.

Not only that, but whether or not a mutation is beneficial depends on context. Let's say there is a mutation in fish that if it occurs, results in normal, healthy fish except that they never develop eyes. You might conclude automatically that such a mutation is obviously detrimental in all contexts, but this is not the case. If this fish population is stranded in a subterranean pool, there would be no light to see with anyways, making the formation of eyes a useless expense of energy and brain specialization. In a context in which sight is useless, losing the eyes is a beneficial outcome.

As per OP, conjecture + conjecture + conjecture .......... does not equal proof and evidence.

When will those promoting evolution to face up to this? How about you? I have in times past. When evolution was finally seen within me as a faith, not evidence based science.

 

[Heissonear]

Here is something for you to reflect on, quietly, when you have a moment. Your objections, allegedly based on common sense, take no account of the evidence. Have you studied, for a period of years, genetics, biology, statistics, palaeonotolgy and the like? If not, your "common sense" conclusion is worth less than a stuffed aardvark with a missing tail. If you are basing your conclusions of what you have read in Creationist literature, I suggest you consider the possibility that they've spent rather too much time with stuffed aardvarks.

You might be the one to step back and take a much broader look and then think a while.

If there are zero fossil record evidence showing evolution of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time then evolution never occurred.

Without detailed anatomical fossil record evidence then evolution is based on conjecture and not scientific evidence.

Any and all modern day biological sciences are simple based on conjecture if stated to be proof of evolution. Said scientific inquiry and socalled biological processes, biochemistry, genome, ....... are simply conjecture conclusions.

Saying something happened in the Earths past but we find no actual physical realm proof of is not going to fly.

Evolution has hit a brick wall, my friend.

It does not appear many on CF understands the real and major problem the theory of evolution is in.

And they keep posting conjecture after conjecture statements and conclusions.

 

[pitabread]

It does not appear many on CF understands the real and major problem the theory of evolution is in.

Because it isn't. The only people who keep stating this are creationists who are only doing so because of perceived conflict with pre-existing religious beliefs.

Evolution is foundational to modern biology and an applied science. That's the reality of things.