Evolution's Brick Wall

[Heissonear]

There are gaps in the fossil record, just as there is a gap between grandfather and grandson in a graveyard. Genetically, cousins that are descendants from a grandfather, will have genetic likeness.

The same thing exists in evolution. Our graveyard in the fossil record has gaps, and our genetics align with the temporal order of those gaps, just as genetics in cousins are more and more separated, the further descended they are from the grandfather.

Evolution has a handfull of additional pieces of evidence though. Such as biogeographical distributions (things like marsupials progressing through south america, elephants on africa and india etc.), ERVs, fused chromosome 2, and genetic likeness identified through mutational differences in DNA.

As with others who have turned the thread to be about biological and biochemical sciences present proof of evolution, it still has not sunk in to such a crowd that they can talk biologics for evolution all they want, but the very proof of evolution occuring in geologic history is missing.

Missing is fossil record evidence between every two different lifeforms where one is said to be from the other. Give excuses all you want for the reason why.

There is zero scientific evidence to show evolution has happened even once; out of all of >600 million years of geologic time and miles of vertical layers of sedimentary deposits across the globe.

Zero fossil record evidence to prove evolution. Only conjecture. And excuses are conjecture.

Without fossils showing detailed morphological changes from one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time then the biochemical and biological sciences so-called proof of evolution is not going to fly.

Evolution has hit a brick wall. It's very lack of fossil record evidence shows the theory to be conjecture-based and requires belief to accept.

I and others are watching the evolution-crowd respond, including on CF. So far they have been closed-minded bias.

 

[pitabread]

Without fossils showing detailed morphological changes from one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time then the biochemical and biological sciences so-called proof of evolution is not going to fly.

So what do you think all the fossils from Earth's history represent then? Fossils like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dorudon, Kutchicetus, for example. Just a bunch of creatures that despite showing morphological progression from land mammals to aquatic mammals over a period of time represent what then? Just a coincidence?

 

[Heissonear]

So what do you think all the fossils from Earth's history represent then? Fossils like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dorudon, Kutchicetus, for example. Just a bunch of creatures that despite showing morphological progression from land mammals to aquatic mammals over a period of time represent what then? Just a coincidence?

There has been and still will be a thread about such. The Creator is full of Intelligence, Power, and Purpose.

It is Him people are to seek for final conclusion on things. And expect to wait until He chooses to reveal. Wait in patience. In full dependence in Him showing or you will not know.

This very subject of learning that evolution is conjecture-based was used to "open me" rather than make me closed minded and confirmation-bias.

It was in openness and sensitivity to Him, even dependence, to show if there is something different than evolution that brought the glorious point of Him opening the heavens, and baptizing me in His Holy Spirit, giving me a firsthand experience of Him On High. Even His Holiness.

Yes, how people react to what they are exposed to is critical in what waits ahead for them - crowd following or not.

There is Divine Planned Purpose why the vast fossil record shows zero evidence that evolution ever happened. Only conjecture.

 

[pitabread]

<snip>

There is Divine Planned Purpose why the vast fossil record shows zero evidence that evolution ever happened. Only conjecture.

I asked you questions about specific fossils and at no point in your reply did you address my questions.

So I will ask again: What do you think fossils like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dorudon, Kutchicetus, etc, represent? Is it just a coincidence that these fossils appear to represent morphological progression from land mammals to aquatic mammals over a period of time?

 

[Job 33:6]

As with others who have turned the thread to be about biological and biochemical sciences present proof of evolution, it still has not sunk in to such a crowd that they can talk biologics for evolution all they want, but the very proof of evolution occuring in geologic history is missing.

Missing is fossil record evidence between every two different lifeforms where one is said to be from the other. Give excuses all you want for the reason why.

There is zero scientific evidence to show evolution has happened even once; out of all of >600 million years of geologic time and miles of vertical layers of sedimentary deposits across the globe.

Zero fossil record evidence to prove evolution. Only conjecture. And excuses are conjecture.

Without fossils showing detailed morphological changes from one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time then the biochemical and biological sciences so-called proof of evolution is not going to fly.

Evolution has hit a brick wall. It's very lack of fossil record evidence shows the theory to be conjecture-based and requires belief to accept.

I and others are watching the evolution-crowd respond, including on CF. So far they have been closed-minded bias.

As a geologist who has published work on paleontology, I disagree.

Thankfully in the scientific community our research matters more than lay opinions.

 

[Job 33:6]

I asked you questions about specific fossils and at no point in your reply did you address my questions.

So I will ask again: What do you think fossils like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dorudon, Kutchicetus, etc, represent? Is it just a coincidence that these fossils appear to represent morphological progression from land mammals to aquatic mammals over a period of time?

I was thinking that same thing. He didn't appear to respond to the question.

 

[Job 33:6]

And not only do the fossils depict a progression that aligns with genetic phylogeny of modern day living animals (which only makes sense in light of evolution), but we also don't find whales in prior mesozoic or paleozoic times.

The transition temporily exists at a time in which we would expect it to, had evolution occurred.

Just as we would expect a grandfather to live before a father and a father before a son, we would expect odd toed ungulates before animals like pakicetus, and pakicetus before proto whales like dorudon.

And that's just the way it is.

Evolution could easily be disproven if a son were found before the father or the father before the grandfather or the son before the grandfather etc. But such a thing has never been observed in the earth. And this is the case for thousands of fossil genera that we have record of.

@inquiring mind and collectively, this is why we are confident that evolution has occurred. There are many independent lines of research deriving the same answer.

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind

I'll have to make another post on biogeographic distributions of fossils. You can actually follow trails of animal fossils as they evolve over time from one location to another.

Animals pass away, they leave trails of bones which are locked in the fossil record, giving us a temporal record of when the bones were fossilized. And with that we can follow life over time and we can see descended forms with increasingly derived morphology over their ancestors, migrating, geographically through time.

It's no coincidence that elephants are randomly in india. It's because India used to be attached to Africa. And over time since those land masses split, there arose new species, the smaller Indian elephants and the much larger African elephants. But if you follow these distributions, you can also see greater amounts of change through time. I gave the example of marsupials earlier. They live in Australia. But Australia itself was connected to the Americas, and you can follow fossils of proto marsupials from North America down to South America, and off of South America, across Antarctica and onto Australia. And you can see when marsupials came into existance by watching the trail of fossils geographically migrating southward, in a succession.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17838631

Woodburne MO, Zinsmeister WJ.
Abstract
A fossil land mammal, apparently the first found in Antarctica, belongs to the extinct marsupial family Polydolopidae. The fossils were recovered from rocks about 40 million years old on Seymour Island, in the northern Antarctic Peninsula. The newly discovered marsupials support theories that predicted their former presence in Antarctica and strengthen proposals that Australian marsupials perhaps originated from South American species that dispersed across Antarctica when Australia still was attached to it, prior to 56 million years ago.



_---------

Ofcourse it is no coincidence that there are random marsupial fossils in ancient Antarctic rock.

It makes perfect sense that if evolution were true, they would be there because they would have to traverse Antarctica to reach Australia.

If marsupials were instantly created out of thin air, I'm not sure that biogeographic distributions would even exist.

But if evolution were true, we would expect to find them just as I can find graveyards and cemetaries with my ancestors in the southern states of the US. Because that's where my family originated.

@inquiring mind

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Ignoring natural selection doesn't make it go away

 

[DogmaHunter]

Change into what? there no guidance here

Yes there is. It's called natural selection.

, evolution can't construct humans with random changes

Yet, it did.

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)

The goal is survival and subsequent reproducing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

You should inform yourself a bit.
The mistakes you make, makes it sound as if you never received any education in biology at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

You said that no fossils exhibiting evolutionary progression exist.
I shows you picture of exactly that.

You're again repeating the same falsehoods and lies in this post again.

Those pictures depict exactly what you ask for: a sequence showing evolutionary change.

Take the skulls of whale ancestors for example...
You can literally see the nostrils move from the front of the fact to the top of the skull.

If such examples don't satisify your request, then now's the time for you to explain why they don't and what kind of fossils would.

Show to us all how you are not the dishonest liar that you seem to be.

 

[Ophiolite]

No sir, I’m not ignorant of that either. It’s just not the best word to use in conversation with someone, especially when you are disagreeing, as it is easily received in the wrong way. There’s a phrase for that you know, it’s called “insolence through manner.” You have explained; I understand; Let’s move on.

Just before we do move on, I like that phrase "insolence of manner", its perhaps akin to the concept of passive-aggressive behaviour, neither of which should be welcome.

Let me just add a brief tale, since it may help you better understand where I am coming from with my persistent use of the words ignorant and ignorance. Until recently I taught graduate engineers and Earth scientists technical matters in oil and gas drilling. At some point I would note the following. "Imagine your knowledge is represented by the contents of a balloon. As your knowledge grows, the volume of the balloon increases. Outside the balloon is everything you don't know, but your ignorance is defined by the surface area of the balloon where it contacts the unknown. As your knowledge increases so too does that surface area and thus your ignorance. My object in life is, therefore, to be a little more ignorant every day than I was the day before. I encourage you to have the same objective, but remember it's hard work."
I think this is a valuable perspective and perhaps, in seeking to allow others to benefit from it I have been insufficiently sensitive to how those words are conventionally viewed.

Now, actually moving on, what is it about the comparison of Orders between primates and ammonites that you find unconvincing?

 

[inquiring mind]

Just before we do move on, I like that phrase "insolence of manner", its perhaps akin to the concept of passive-aggressive behaviour, neither of which should be welcome.

Let me just add a brief tale, since it may help you better understand where I am coming from with my persistent use of the words ignorant and ignorance. Until recently I taught graduate engineers and Earth scientists technical matters in oil and gas drilling. At some point I would note the following. "Imagine your knowledge is represented by the contents of a balloon. As your knowledge grows, the volume of the balloon increases. Outside the balloon is everything you don't know, but your ignorance is defined by the surface area of the balloon where it contacts the unknown. As your knowledge increases so too does that surface area and thus your ignorance. My object in life is, therefore, to be a little more ignorant every day than I was the day before. I encourage you to have the same objective, but remember it's hard work."
I think this is a valuable perspective and perhaps, in seeking to allow others to benefit from it I have been insufficiently sensitive to how those words are conventionally viewed.

Now, actually moving on, what is it about the comparison of Orders between primates and ammonites that you find unconvincing?

I'll try to get back with everyone later today... just got back from dentist.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll try to get back with everyone later today... just got back from dentist.

If drilling was involved you have my sympathy. There is no rush. I have some hopes of being here for a year or two yet.

 

[xianghua]

Is it just a coincidence that these fossils appear to represent morphological progression from land mammals to aquatic mammals over a period of time?

actually many creatures dont show such a progression. so if a progression is evidence for evolution according to you- then non progression should be evidence against it. agree?

 

[xianghua]

I shows you picture of exactly that.

how many mutations required to change a land mammal into a whale?

 

[pitabread]

so if a progression is evidence for evolution according to you

I'm asking specifically about fossils that demonstrate a morphological progression from a land mammals to aquatic mammals.

Do you think that is just a coincidence?