Evolution's Brick Wall

[Heissonear]

If genetics defines morphology, then if you have an endless number of mutations, inevitably, your morphology will change ...........................

So unless young earth creationists or evolution deniers can provide evidence .................

Who needs to provide real world historical evidence that evolution has occurred?

It is evolutionists.

Evolutionists have yet to provide real world historical evidence that evolution happened.

There are many on CF that fail to realize this. Did you not read the OP and understand?

 

[Heissonear]

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.

Let's say some have heard enough conjecture-based talk and now what to see the morphologically detailed fossil record that shows evolution happened once.

Conjecture-based statements have went far enough by evolutionists.

I had to face up in times past. Nothing has changed since. Now it's time for others to give account to the brick wall evolution has hit.

 

[Heissonear]

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.
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 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.


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.

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?

Nice try. You did not post the morphologically detailed fossil evidence that proves evolution has occurred on Earth.

Why?

Why so much quasi-scientific talk but avoidance of what I have asked for?

You even derided the OP-er and OP statements. Why? Why not furnish the observational historical proof?

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Despite your protestations to the contrary there is abundant fossil evidence showing evolution.
There is also abundant evidence from embryology.
There is also abundant evidence from comparative anaotomy.
There is also abundant evidence from geographical distribution of lifeforms.
There is also abundant evidence from biochemistry.
There is also abundant evidence from genetics.

You reject all of this evidence. In turn, I reject your fatuous decision to favour self-indulgent ignorance.

 

[Ophiolite]

Heissonear, while we are at it, you might like to address the following question. It is one that I have asked you previously, at least twice. You have ignored it on each occassion. I'll be generous and pretend you simply missed those posts. Don't miss this one.

Please explain why you reject the progressive increase in maximum complexity of ammonite sutures throughout the Mezozoic as evidence for evolution.

 

[NBB]

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



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.



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.

Even if there is a mechanism like natural selection, as good as may be, it can't be helped if the changes don't build anything useful... and random changes can be all over the place, creating garbage, i really doubt the changes would accumulate in one specific organ building it (worse because these organs are connected in design with others) WHY really? why they would do that?
until it is done and all of them benefiting survival.... It does not make sense.

 

[tas8831]

Nice try. You did not post the morphologically detailed fossil evidence that proves evolution has occurred on Earth.

I posted links to some examples that were discussed - but nice goal-post moving (another dishonest creationist tactic).
You never mentioned "morphologically detailed" before.

Why?

Why so much quasi-scientific talk but avoidance of what I have asked for?

I have asked for the evidence that you have "inspected" millions of fossils as you implied elsewhere. Still waiting for that.

Speaking of quasi-scientific talk - why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do so many of y our posts contain bible verses?

And why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do you ignore evidence presented to you?

And why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do you never provide any scientific evidence for creation?

And why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do you never actually discuss any of the evidence presented (you just ignore it)?

You even derided the OP-er and OP statements. Why?

I explained that twice - but thanks for showing us all yet again that you are disingenuous in your requests for 'debate' seeing as how you basically ignore everything people actually write.

Just for you - it was not derision (thanks for lying) - I merely asked if the OP-er understand what he was even claiming (he does not by his own admission in another thread).

Why not furnish the observational historical proof?

Where is the observational historical proof of a man being created from dust?

And please - no circular argumentation.

 

[tas8831]

Heissonear, while we are at it, you might like to address the following question. It is one that I have asked you previously, at least twice. You have ignored it on each occassion. I'll be generous and pretend you simply missed those posts. Don't miss this one.

Please explain why you reject the progressive increase in maximum complexity of ammonite sutures throughout the Mezozoic as evidence for evolution.

So he ignores you, too, then bombastically asserts that he's not been shown evidence.

What is it with this creationist dishonesty?

 

[tas8831]

Who needs to provide real world historical evidence that evolution has occurred?

It is evolutionists.

Evolutionists have yet to provide real world historical evidence that evolution happened.

There are many on CF that fail to realize this. Did you not read the OP and understand?

I read the OP and understood that the person started the thread did not understand the science of geology, evolution, etc., and was probably acting on nonsense he read at some creationist website.

Curious, though, why you tend to ignore pretty much everything people write? Can't hang? Fear?

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

*

I need to quit reading your posts and just click on WINNER all the time!

 

[pitabread]

Let's say some have heard enough conjecture-based talk and now what to see the morphologically detailed fossil record that shows evolution happened once.

I don't know what you mean by "morphologically detailed fossil record".

Regardless, the fossil record shows the history of life on Earth; different organisms existed in the past compared to now. And there are patterns showing morphological change over time with respect to older to newer forms of life.

On top of that, it still doesn't address the fact that modern evolutionary theory is an applied science. It's the elephant in the room no creationist wants to touch.

 

[Heissonear]

Despite your protestations to the contrary there is abundant fossil evidence showing evolution.

There is also abundant evidence from embryology ....... comparative anaotomy ......... geographical distribution of lifeforms ......... biochemistry ..... genetics.

Why have you made a list that to you proves evolution but did not address the main issue evolution now faces - zero detailed fossil record evidence showing evolution of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Why?

And why are you not facing up this dilemma? Are you open to observations or closed door bias.

I faced up decades ago. Nothing has changed.

 

[pitabread]

Even if there is a mechanism like natural selection, as good as may be, it can't be helped if the changes don't build anything useful... and random changes can be all over the place, creating garbage, i really doubt the changes would accumulate in one specific organ building it

The whole point of selection is that it acts a filter to keep what works and filters out what is "garbage".

On top of that, evolution is recursive. This means that the next set of changes build on top of what already was selected for in the previous generation. This is one of the biggest pieces in understanding at a conceptual level how evolution works and how it can produce complexity.

The whole process involves creating a bunch of variations, filtering out a subset of those variations, replicating those selected variations while making further changes to them, selecting another subset, making more replications and changes, and so on.

The other big piece of the puzzle is genetic recombination. Sexually reproducing organisms mix DNA from two parents in a single organism. This allows for changes in one organism to be mixed with changes in another, further increasing variation in the offspring.

(worse because these organs are connected in design with others) WHY really? why they would do that?

Because the organs are all part of the same organism (and their offspring) and changes accumulate over time.

Imagine a small mutation which changes the stomach in a creature (maybe aids digestion or something). In subsequent generations, the offspring will carry that mutation already. Then if one of those offspring has another mutation, say which makes a change to its lungs. Then in the subsequent generation you'll have an offspring with both the mutation to the stomach and the lungs. Then perhaps a further offspring down the line has a mutation which changes its heart. And so on...

Over time, changes accumulate. And adding in the filtering process of natural selection, there is a tendency towards systems which are functionally beneficial and therefore can become integrated in such a manner.

 

[Heissonear]

I posted links to some examples that were discussed - but nice goal-post moving (another dishonest creationist tactic).
You never mentioned "morphologically detailed" before.
I have asked for the evidence that you have "inspected" millions of fossils as you implied elsewhere. Still waiting for that.

Speaking of quasi-scientific talk - why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do so many of y our posts contain bible verses?

And why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do you ignore evidence presented to you?

And why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do you never provide any scientific evidence for creation?

And why, if you want to pretend to be concerned about science, do you never actually discuss any of the evidence presented (you just ignore it)?

I explained that twice - but thanks for showing us all yet again that you are disingenuous in your requests for 'debate' seeing as how you basically ignore everything people actually write.

Just for you - it was not derision (thanks for lying) - I merely asked if the OP-er understand what he was even claiming (he does not by his own admission in another thread).

Where is the observational historical proof of a man being created from dust?

And please - no circular argumentation.

Per OP topic on evolution lacks historic proof - yes morphologically detailed fossils showing changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record - show the fossil record proof evolution ever happened.

An X to a deer. A X to a Y. Let's see the scientific evidence.

You have yet to learn there is no such evidence and face up to it. You still think evolution is based on science and have missed how it lacks the very evidence to support it has ever happened.

You have been schooled. There was a day when I realized that the theory of evolution was a faith, lacking true scientific evidence.

 

[pitabread]

show the fossil record proof evolution ever happened.

The fossil record shows species that previously existed that don't exist now. Furthermore, there exist species that exist today that didn't exist previously. Furthermore, there are patterns in the fossil record showing changes to morphology over time (examples would be things like the evolution of whales and changes from land mammals to aquatic mammals, or the changes in hominids and increasing cranial capacity over time). Furthermore, we know that organisms reproduce and genetically vary from one generation to the next, and that these genetic changes can show up as changes in morphology.

Voila, the fossil record shows evolution happened.

 

[tas8831]

Even if there is a mechanism like natural selection, as good as may be, it can't be helped if the changes don't build anything useful... and random changes can be all over the place, creating garbage, i really doubt the changes would accumulate in one specific organ building it (worse because these organs are connected in design with others) WHY really? why they would do that?

Question begging accompanied by "I doubtism" plus ignorance of the relationship between genotype and phenotype.

until it is done and all of them benefiting survival.... It does not make sense.

Not all of them. Add strawman to your fallacy cocktail.

 

[tas8831]

Per OP topic on evolution lacks historic proof - yes morphologically detailed fossils showing changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record - show the fossil record proof evolution ever happened.

An X to a deer. A X to a Y. Let's see the scientific evidence.

You have yet to learn there is no such evidence and face up to it. You still think evolution is based on science and have missed how it lacks the very evidence to support it has ever happened.

You have been schooled. There was a day when I realized that the theory of evolution was a faith, lacking true scientific evidence.

You've been schooled repeatedly, yet you refuse to learn. Out of fear? malice? Ignorance? Hard to say. But you repetitive, dishonest dodges are getting tiresome, as is your tendency to simply ignore what people actually write - all to prop up your sad beliefs.

I read the OP and understood that the person started the thread did not understand the science of geology, evolution, etc., and was probably acting on nonsense he read at some creationist website.

Curious, though, why you tend to ignore pretty much everything people write? Can't hang? Fear?

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?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why have you made a list that to you proves evolution

How many times do you have to be told that science is not in business of proving anything? Was your scientific education of such a poor standard that this point was not made? Have you failed to read and to understand the many posts, by many members, in many threads, who have made that very point? Here it is again - I've emboldened it as a hint to you that it is important - Science is not in the business of proving things.

Science seeks plausible explanations, supported by evidence and structured reasoning, for observations of events, processes, objects and entities in the world. These are then accepted as the most likely explanation for such events, etc. until such times, should they occur, that contrary information, or more informed reasoning becomes available.

...... but did not address the main issue evolution now faces - zero detailed fossil record evidence showing evolution of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

The issue is one based upon your flagrant, bizarre, egregious denial of the raft of evidence that does exist. i.e. The issue is an imaginary one, formed out of your Nelsonian approach to the unwelcome. So, I have no intention of parading example after example just to have you ignore them as you have ignored, repeatedly, my request that you explain why you reject the progressive complication of ammonite sutures as evidence of evolution. (I see you have managed to ignore it again. Even those who support your views must be getting a little supsicious of your approach.)

 

[tas8831]

The Leviathan is an image from the old Urgaic, the Phonecians spoke of these sea monsters. The Hebrews borrowed the imagery for dramatic effect on there prophetic Oracle's. In Job there is mention of rousing the Leviathan, which invokes a curse. God responds you will remember the experience and never do it again. It not a dinosaur it's dramatic figurative language indicating a demon or it's parallel in Revelations, the dragon or the devil himself. Its just a literary feature.

Hi Mark,

I was just using some of that fancy "logic" back at him.

I had asked you earlier in this thread about this - maybe you missed it (or maybe I missed your reply):

Hi Mark - hoping you can address this:

Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.

That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.

I have come across these sorts of debates for literally decades. And without fail, regardless of the amount of apparent scientific reasons the creationists present, it ultimately comes down to their simple refusal to accept it - they just don't believe it. But that is not an argument.

I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what, exactly, you think would have had to happen is the "naturalistic view" were accurate.

For example - there is a mutant allele for the myostatin gene that produces, naturally, giant muscles:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jp7ZiewdHdY/TdogQbnTONI/AAAAAAAAABw/lOiFnKoV3qs/s1600/belgianblue.jpg

While I am not claiming this to be the case, why do you pre-reject something like this (I am assuming you would) in the case of human brain expansion?

That tremendous skeletal muscle expansion is the result of a single mutation. There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think).

 

[NBB]

The whole point of selection is that it acts a filter to keep what works and filters out what is "garbage".

On top of that, evolution is recursive. This means that the next set of changes build on top of what already was selected for in the previous generation. This is one of the biggest pieces in understanding at a conceptual level how evolution works and how it can produce complexity.

The whole process involves creating a bunch of variations, filtering out a subset of those variations, replicating those selected variations while making further changes to them, selecting another subset, making more replications and changes, and so on.

The other big piece of the puzzle is genetic recombination. Sexually reproducing organisms mix DNA from two parents in a single organism. This allows for changes in one organism to be mixed with changes in another, further increasing variation in the offspring.



Because the organs are all part of the same organism (and their offspring) and changes accumulate over time.

Imagine a small mutation which changes the stomach in a creature (maybe aids digestion or something). In subsequent generations, the offspring will carry that mutation already. Then if one of those offspring has another mutation, say which makes a change to its lungs. Then in the subsequent generation you'll have an offspring with both the mutation to the stomach and the lungs. Then perhaps a further offspring down the line has a mutation which changes its heart. And so on...

Over time, changes accumulate. And adding in the filtering process of natural selection, there is a tendency towards systems which are functionally beneficial and therefore can become integrated in such a manner.

I don't think random mutation is that 'talented' to make new whole organs and all that.
Engineers have to break their heads to make things, and evolution with random mutations and a bit of death made something much more important, our bodies, not including our intellect which is far more of a thing.