Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

And one other thing. @inquiring mind said that he didn't know how such a prediction was made. Which is no surprise.

What this shows us is that, and no offense to inquiring mind, we see this all the time...

What it shows us is that young earthers and deniers of evolution, are unable to make logical conclusions about physical reality. They're literally unable to understand reality.

And most people become aware of this, and accept the theory of evolution upon realizing the logical sense behind it. And it can take years to learn the theory and even years to un-learn pseudoscience. So there is no shame in being in a position in which you don't know if evolution is true or not. We we're all there at one point in time.

But this is just another demonstration of how we know that the theory is true. And I'm sorry that you had to be the test subject for this one. @inquiring mind . But again, there is no shame in saying "I don't know", because that's usually just a sign that you're being honest.

 

[Job 33:6]

I can see where this find would be eagerly received by evolutionists as proof of their model. I remember now that this was where I asked that with millions of kinds in God's creation, should we be surprised to find some anomalies in both predictability and kind that appear to be transitioning in the evolution model? I think I asked if this might be a possibility here? The only answer I got, as I remember, was that it was impossible for such a thing to happen. Didn't this find happen ten years or so ago? Is there further evidence at this time to back it up? Close just counts in horseshoes as they say.

And I responded to this before. The find is not anomolous. It is the norm, it is the standard and is common. And there are no anomoloes that break this. Ie there is no such thing as the proverbial Cambrian bunny. And if you don't know what I mean by a Cambrian bunny, just let me know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Trees walking about:

Mark 8:
23 And getting hold of the hand of the blind-one, He brings him forth out of the village. And spitting into the eyes<3659> of him,placing the hands on him, He inquired of him "What are thou observing"?
24 And looking he said "I am beholding the men, that as trees I see walking-about"
25 Thereafter again, He places the hands upon the eyes<3788> of him, and made him look-up, and he is restored and he beheld<1689> clearly all.

Revelation 8:7
The first Messenger trumpets, and hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the land.[fn]
And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.

Of course, when people stupidly take things out of context.... hence he saw men as trees walking about.... so the number of men he observed was like unto a forest, uncountable...

Geez, this wasn’t really worth a response...

 

[Job 33:6]

People don't just randomly get on a helicopter, fly to a random spot in the Canadian tundra and pick out a random rock and just "get lucky" in finding the right fossil with just the right qualities. In just the right rock type in just the right depth in just the right spacial location .

And also, the inverse, people don't find such things in places where evolution wouldn't predict them to be. There is no Cambrian bunny nor any analogous fossil in 300 years of fossil discoveries, it doesn't happen.

We don't find tiktaaliks randomly in Cambrian or ordovician or silurian rock (which would contradict the theory). We don't find birds in any paleozoic rock, we don't find mammals in paleozoic rock. We don't find reptiles in devonian or silurian or ordovician or Cambrian rock. We don't find amphibians in silurian ordovician or Cambrian rock. We always find hybrids in between such as tiktaalik.

And this is reality.

Some people deny this. They'll say, oh well, tiktaalik isn't a transitional, it's just a fish. But this is just false because tiktaalik has a head like an alligator and a neck that turns and wrist bones that turn and spiracles for breathing air, and robust ribs and shoulders. Fish don't have these qualities. It's not a fish. But it does have scales like a fish. And it has fins like a fish and gills like a fish. But it's not just a fish.

And deniers do this all the time and they repeat the same nonsense, all the time. As if they believe that in repeating the nonsense, they will literally turn it into a reality in which others around them might believe it and repeat it too.

And we see this right here in these forums. People repeating the same anti scientific nonsense.

And of course it's disturbing for people who are scientists like myself and other here to see non scientists saying that were ignorant of what we study or are part of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth from the public.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, that was already kind of clear after the question was left unanswered on multiple occasions.

More importantly though, the very fact that scientists were able to predict the locality of this specific fossil with those specific features, kind of flies in the face of your claims that "macro evolution" has no supporting evidence.

What better fossil evidence thereof can there be, then actually literally predicting the locality of a previously unknown fossil, holding a combination of certain features never seen before in any fossil - while knowing that that prediction naturally flows from the premise that macro-evolution occured?




Sure.

They were able to predict both the locality and features of this previously unknown fossil based on simply the theory of evolution and the radiation patterns it results in both in genotype/phenotype and geographical distribution of species.

For the same reason, we can predict that kangaroos will only be found in Australia. Because that's where they evolved and since the time they evolved, there hasn't been any land bridge by which they could leave that continent.

So it seems that if you assume an evolutionary history of life, you can use that framework to make predictions about fossil locations, geographic distribution of species, distribution patterns of genetic markers, distribution patterns of anatomical features, etc etc etc.

How could that be, if evolution theory isn't accurate?

What prediction? Post dacting the claim of prediction after it is found?

Some evolutionist claiming he predicted it in the paper where he discloses its discovery and not before?

Otherwise it’s just the word of people that have no scruples about using orangutan skulls and pigs teeth to bolster their claims.....

 

[Job 33:6]

What prediction? Post dacting the claim of prediction after it is found?

Some evolutionist claiming he predicted it in the paper where he discloses its discovery and not before?

Otherwise it’s just the word of people that have no scruples about using orangutan skulls and pigs teeth to bolster their claims.....

Everyone was well aware that those scientists were headed to Canada to find something like tiktaalik, well before it happened.

And by everyone, i mean people who actually do this stuff, like myself. Probably not people who aren't involved.

 

[inquiring mind]

Sorry, I messed this post up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can see where this find would be eagerly received by evolutionists as proof of their model.

Not proof. Supporting evidence.
And once more... the real "victory" for evolution here, is not the fossil itself. It is the prediction of the fossil turning out to be accurate.

I remember now that this was where I asked that with millions of kinds in God's creation, should we be surprised to find some anomalies in both predictability and kind that appear to be transitioning in the evolution model?

Yes, we should. Because there is absolutely no reason why you would be able to make such predictions in a world where all "kinds" were created in individual and independent creation events.

There simply is no framework availeble to make such predictions in creationism (or ID or whatever other incarnation you prefer).

Evolution on the other hand, is the exact opposite. Not only does it allow such predictions, it actually requires them.

Case in point: if predictions like these fail in the creationist model, then it makes absolutely no difference. But if such predictions fail in the evolutionary (or any other scientific) model, then it makes a world of difference!

In any case, I repeat: creationism does not at all provide a framework by which you can make such predictions. If you disagree, I welcome you to explain how it could be done.

I think I asked if this might be a possibility here?

I don't see how.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe... if they did it a million times.

If what happened a million times?

There are two pieces to this.

A. The predictions, like tiktaalik and;
B. The lack of fossils that run contrary to what would be expected or possible.

A. Is common. We are talking about, probably hundreds of research papers with similar predictions for varying fossils.
B. Is the norm, of anyone, including you, you can go out and test this. You can look at any fossil bearing rock and you can test this yourself to see if something exists where it doesnt belong. So this has happened probably millions of times.

You have the power to disprove evolution. Just go out to any fossil bearing rock, anywhere and look and see what fossils are in it. And see if they contradict the theory. And if you do find such a fossil, let me know, and I will attempt to be partially accredited for its discovery so that we can both be wealthy for discovering something that flies in the face of 300 years of prior well established discoveries.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What prediction? Post dacting the claim of prediction after it is found?

Some evolutionist claiming he predicted it in the paper where he discloses its discovery and not before?

Otherwise it’s just the word of people that have no scruples about using orangutan skulls and pigs teeth to bolster their claims.....

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt......

 

[inquiring mind]

If what happened a million times?

There are two pieces to this.

A. The predictions, like tiktaalik and;
B. The lack of fossils that run contrary to what would be expected or possible.

A. Is common. We are talking about, probably hundreds of research papers with similar predictions for varying fossils.
B. Is the norm, of anyone, including you, you can go out and test this. You can look at any fossil bearing rock and you can test this yourself to see if something exists where it doesnt belong. So this has happened probably millions of times.

You have the power to disprove evolution. Just go out to any fossil bearing rock, anywhere and look and see what fossils are in it. And see if they contradict the theory. And if you do find such a fossil, let me know, and I will attempt to be partially accredited for its discovery so that we can both be wealthy for discovering something that flies in the face of 300 years of prior well established discoveries.

Sorry, I messed that post up royally.

 

[tas8831]

Except your trees are being rewritten as genomic advancements are made, half of them already shown to be false.

Which half? And these "genomic advancements" - how do they trump all of the previous advancements?

And to what extent are they "false"?

If there are 20 taxa in a study, and "genomic advancements" move the location of one of them, does that mean the entire tree is false? That all phylogenetics is wrong?

That can NOT be, considering the fact that the methods have been tested on knowns. Your position is akin to claiming that some new mathematical model says powered flight is impossible, and then denying that airplanes have ever flown.

So much for predictive power....

So basically what I see is PR speak and refusal to face reality...

Projection. That is what I see.

Funny - creationists Baraminologists use the same methods real scientists do - please inform your Christian brethren that all of their work is now falsified, too. Or at least half of it is.

 

[tas8831]

from something that isnt globin. maybe another protein family.

Myoblobin? Hemoglobin ?

Which subunit of hemoglobin - alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon? Which species?

If you can look up a dozen different stylized drawings and diagrams of robot penguins, VW Beetles, flagella, etc., surely you can use the interwebs to actually learn about the things you bring up, probably accidentally, can't you?

added in edit -

15 seconds on Google:

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2012 Dec; 2(12): a011627.
Evolution of Hemoglobin and Its Genes

 

[pitabread]

And of course it's disturbing for people who are scientists like myself and other here to see non scientists saying that were ignorant of what we study or are part of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth from the public.

I look at it as a colossal failure of creationism that they have to resort to conspiracy theories in the first place. It's indicative of the fact that they can't otherwise compete on the basis of science.

 

[inquiring mind]

They'll say, oh well, tiktaalik isn't a transitional, it's just a fish. But this is just false because tiktaalik has a head like an alligator and a neck that turns and wrist bones that turn and spiracles for breathing air, and robust ribs and shoulders. Fish don't have these qualities. It's not a fish. But it does have scales like a fish. And it has fins like a fish and gills like a fish. But it's not just a fish.

Okay, I'll try again, I was in two different forums at once and misread your post. I still say that with all the different kinds and millions of variations, how could it be impossible for some strange variation to exist that might fit a given model? I don't understand the mechanics involved with the predictability part, but it involves man, and that can always involve some type bias. Have there been any updates or contrary papers since that find (2007 I believe)? I would expect there are, but I've been unable to find any. I do find that odd, but maybe someone else will present one here.

 

[46AND2]

Okay, I'll try again, I was in two different forums at once and misread your post. I still say that with all the different kinds and millions of variations, how could it be impossible for some strange variation to exist that might fit a given model? I don't understand the mechanics involved with the predictability part, but it involves man, and that can always involve some type bias. Have there been any updates or contrary papers since that find (2007 I believe)? I would expect there are, but I've been unable to find any. I do find that odd, but maybe someone else will present one here.

They documented the attempt, explained exactly where they were going to look, why, and what kind of features they expected to find.

How could the flood model account for that?

 

[inquiring mind]

They documented the attempt, explained exactly where they were going to look, why, and what kind of features they expected to find.
How could the flood model account for that?

They found some of D.B. Cooper's stolen money well upstream in a nearby river from where it was calculated that he jumped in 1971... and I don't think they have ever explained that either, just speculation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I look at it as a colossal failure of creationism that they have to resort to conspiracy theories in the first place. It's indicative of the fact that they can't otherwise compete on the basis of science to begin with.

yea definitely.

I always hear things like, oh theyre hiding things from the public or theyre hiding fossils from us. Then when you tell them that you are the scientist and those are your fossils (or maybe uve worked with the collections, or have discovered fossils), when you tell them that you are the one theyre challenging, then its just awkward because theyve accused you of being a liar or being deceptive or...being ignorant of something that you have direct experience with.

Christianity, is a religion with many lessons on honesty and truth. Ephesians 4:20-32, this is a popular set of chapters.

20 But that isn’t what you learned about Christ.
21 Since you have heard about Jesus and have learned the truth that comes from him,
22 throw off your old sinful nature and your former way of life, which is corrupted by lust and deception.
23 Instead, let the Spirit renew your thoughts and attitudes.
24 Put on your new nature, created to be like God—truly righteous and holy.
25 So stop telling lies. Let us tell our neighbors the truth, for we are all parts of the same body.
26 And “don’t sin by letting anger control you.” Don’t let the sun go down while you are still angry,
27 for anger gives a foothold to the devil.
28 If you are a thief, quit stealing. Instead, use your hands for good hard work, and then give generously to others in need.
29 Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.
30 And do not bring sorrow to God’s Holy Spirit by the way you live. Remember, he has identified you as his own, guaranteeing that you will be saved on the day of redemption.
31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior.
32 Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you

Some Christians feel as though science and the theory of evolution, run contrary to scripture and genesis, and in such, will lie and will be deceptive or intellectually dishonest in the name of Christ, for the sake of protecting Christianity. But in reality, what theyre doing is running contrary to what Christ warned us about, long ago.

Bearing false witness is the opposite of what Christ has called us to do, but you wouldnt think that based on the false witness displayed by young earth creationists on this forum.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay, I'll try again, I was in two different forums at once and misread your post. I still say that with all the different kinds and millions of variations, how could it be impossible for some strange variation to exist that might fit a given model? I don't understand the mechanics involved with the predictability part, but it involves man, and that can always involve some type bias. Have there been any updates or contrary papers since that find (2007 I believe)? I would expect there are, but I've been unable to find any. I do find that odd, but maybe someone else will present one here.

It is impossible because...maybe this is the dilemma. People have to be familiar with science to understand. For example, if I asked you where the nearest Devonian outcrop of rock is, from your location, would you be able to answer? If not, then that could be an issue, because you wouldnt be able to understand the fossil succession if you werent first familiar with the geologic succession and where rocks are.

If you are able to answer the question, then we would be able to discuss where else on the planet, devonian rocks are exposed, and where underground theyre located as well. These things are necessary in understanding how the prediction was made.

 

[Job 33:6]

And no, there arent any updates contrary to tiktaaliks discovery in 2007. At best, some young earthers describe foot tracks from a polish devonian formation that is somewhere between 10-15 million years earlier than tiktaalik. However, if you are aware that there are 600 million years of complex fossils, and over 4.56 billion years of rock in which fossils may be found with the oldest dating back over a billion years, to say that tetrapod tracks (which may have been made by something similar to tiktaalik) appeared 10-15 million years before tiktaalik (which is like a geologic blink of an eye), it is almost meaningless because...it could not even be interpreted as a succession from fish to tetrapod, occuring beyond that small margin of time (10-15 million years).

A lot of young earthers dont seem to understand this. If tetrapod tracks were found in the ordovician, or the silurian or cambrian, it would absolutely run contrary to the discovery of tiktaalik. Any terrestrial tracks in the ordovician at all are questionable even in invertebrates, let alone terrestrial vertebrate tetrapods.

But to say that there are tracks temporally in the devonian, right next to tiktaalik, doesnt really change anything. Its not a proverbial bunny in the cambrian, its more like a bunny in the late pleistocene. If that makes sense.