Evolution's Brick Wall

[46AND2]

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.

Well, since you put it that way, I'm convinced. How do I change my faith category on here?

 

[Job 33:6]

But scientists have been making predictions like those used to discover tiktaalik for decades. Its not like these scientists came up with something profoundly new. Scientists have actually also used biological qualities, such as protein studies, to determine temporally where fossils will exist as well. Paleontologists and biologists have actually bumped heads over who can make the more precise prediction. Paleontologists identifying lineages based on fossil discoveries, and biologists using biological traits in modern day living animals to predict where there fossils will be found on earth and at what depths in the earth.

Imagine that. Someone literally taking a blood sample, and then telling you where, in this massive planet, a specific type of skeleton would be found. And it works.

But its only possible because our DNA holds an identical record to the fossil record. So people familiar with DNA, like biologists, can actually do a better job at predicting where fossils might be (sometimes they can), than paleontologists who actually know more about the fossils themselves.

 

[Job 33:6]

And earth is big. Rocks go down underground thousands of feet. There is a lot of square foot of rock on earth, in which fossils may be found. So you best believe that if someone points to a random spot in canada, and they invest thousands of dollars in camping gear and a helicopter ride, and they come back with that exact fossil that they said they were going to get...there is no doubt at all, that this is not random luck or chance.

The reality is, its not random at all. Its the theory of evolution.

And they have pictures of the outcrop, pictures of the fossils in the outcrop. Many more have been discovered, i think there may be close to 20 tiktaalik specimen. These are honest people and its not some kind of conspiracy as some on these forums might suggest. And I find similar fossils and i know that I am not making this up. Im not hiding anything in my collection or doing anything deceptive. But some young earth creationists will suggest that we are hiding things and that we are lying or are being deceptive. Which is just insulting.

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind
http://gravestonegeek.com/post/86360611394/generalized-bedrock-geologic-map-of-connecticut

http://mrdaniels.weebly.com/geologic-time-scale.html

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/76/d2/bd76d2799a4c957425190e9728785474.jpg

View attachment 240217

These might help. So the link is to a map of connecticut. And i have also added in a geologic timescale figure. So based on these figures, if someone looks at a geologic map of connecticut, and sees J ta, J ho, J ha etc., these are all callouts for jurassic bedding. Blues and yellows are early paleozoic, so thats your ordovician and silurian and rocks around that timephrame, and to the east is proterozoic which is pretty old. Thats why its on the bottom and windowing out there by willimantic.

So in connecticut, we really shouldnt find cenozoic fossils. Jurassic bedding shouldnt have anything outside of Jurassic fossils. no primeates, no flowing plants etc. This is a very vague figure, but you get the idea.

 

[pitabread]

And if I don't agree that is proof of evolution, then I did not want to learn...right?

No, it's your not wanting to learn which means you do not want to learn.

For example, I repeatedly linked you free courses on evolution. Do you have any interest in them?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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 .

True, when that happens it’s usually a sign of a setup in advance.....

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.

There have been many out of place fossils. They just redo the date by 100 million years to make it fit back into place. But of course then that would mean having to move the time on it’s predecessors putting them out of date as well. But that’s ignored....

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.

It’s not a transitional. It is fully formed and distinct. There is not one shred of proof it was once something different or that it became something different. It is simply another variation within its species (like dogs) that went extinct....

Why would we expect to find animals before sea life? If you found that creation would be falsified. We expect the exact order we see...

 

[pitabread]

It’s not a transitional. It is fully formed and distinct.

I've never understood what "fully formed" is supposed to even mean?

By definition, all organisms are "fully formed". That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a fossil is considered transitional.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I've never understood what "fully formed" is supposed to even mean?

By definition, all organisms are "fully formed". That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a fossil is considered transitional.

Yah I know, eyeballs, lungs, etc just pop into existence...

 

[Astrophile]

I've never understood what "fully formed" is supposed to even mean?

By definition, all organisms are "fully formed". That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a fossil is considered transitional.

Perhaps creationists think that, to reverse Haeckel's famous dictum, 'phylogeny repeats ontogeny'. In other words, they may think that the evolutionary ancestors of a modern species, such as a horse, ought to resemble the embryos or foetuses of horses; if this were true, these ancestors would not be fully formed animals any more than the embryo of a horse is a fully formed animal. Do you think that this could be the explanation?

 

[Speedwell]

Yah I know, eyeballs, lungs, etc just pop into existence...

That reminds me of one of creationisms oldest falsehoods--that evolution requires creatures to drag around half-formed, useless appendages waiting for just the right mutation to come along and finish them. I thought you guys had given up on that kind of thing. But now you seem to be saying that evolution requires eyes and lungs, etc. to pop into existence fully formed, which is just as goofy and just as wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

True, when that happens it’s usually a sign of a setup in advance.....


There have been many out of place fossils. They just redo the date by 100 million years to make it fit back into place. But of course then that would mean having to move the time on it’s predecessors putting them out of date as well. But that’s ignored....


It’s not a transitional. It is fully formed and distinct. There is not one shred of proof it was once something different or that it became something different. It is simply another variation within its species (like dogs) that went extinct....

Why would we expect to find animals before sea life? If you found that creation would be falsified. We expect the exact order we see...

I'll put you back on ignore.

Also, you never addressed how the prediction was made, all you've seem to have done is claim some sort of bizarre conspiracy about scientists shifting dates by a hundred million years, and uve claimed tiktaalik is fully formed, as If this contradicts the fact that it has both fish features such as scales, fins and gills, as well as land based tetrapod features like spiracles for breathing air, a flat head like a salamander, rotating wrists and a mobile neck (which are not fish properties).

 

[Job 33:6]

That reminds me of one of creationisms oldest falsehoods--that evolution requires creatures to drag around half-formed, useless appendages waiting for just the right mutation to come along and finish them. I thought you guys had given up on that kind of thing. But now you seem to be saying that evolution requires eyes and lungs, etc. to pop into existence fully formed, which is just as goofy and just as wrong.

I always think of the whole crockaduck thing. The meme that is a duck with a crocodiles head. I think this is what creationists envision when they think of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Yah I know, eyeballs, lungs, etc just pop into existence...

Not only is that not how things work, it still has nothing to do with the definition of a transitional fossil.

 

[pitabread]

I always think of the whole crockaduck thing. The meme that is a duck with a crocodiles head. I think this is what creationists envision when they think of evolution.

One of the biggest issues creationists seem to have with evolution is not having a good conceptual understanding of it.

 

[Ophiolite]

One of the biggest issues creationists seem to have with evolution is not having a good conceptual understanding of it.

I think the problem may be deeper than that. Many seem to have no understanding of biology in general. YEC members are unable to understand that the differences in phenotype between different species, genera and families of, say, foraminifera or ammonites are as significant as the differences between different species, genera and families of primates, and that they reflect similar differences in the genotype.

Thus their argument that all the changes in foraminifera or ammonites are simply changes within a kind can be turned on its head and we might reply "Yes, and all the changes within primates are simply changes within a kind, that kind being primates, thereby affirming that we are descended from (and continue to be) apes and close cousins to lemurs, etc."

Their response to this appears to be three fold: either ignore it completely, or repeat the same misunderstanding, or assert that the foraminifera and ammonites have been misclassified, in the latter case with no evidence that they have the slightest background in cladistics, or taxonomy that would justify such a claim. (And producing no citations from anyone who does have such background that would support the claim.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Maybe he meant Goblins. Robotic goblins, obviously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

True, when that happens it’s usually a sign of a setup in advance.....

Did you just say that the discoverers of Tiktaalik, fabricated the fossil and burried it there so that they could "discover" it at a later time?

There have been many out of place fossils. They just redo the date by 100 million years to make it fit back into place

100 million years, ey?
Don't you get sick of lying all the time?

It’s not a transitional

It has features of both fish and tetrapods.............

It is fully formed and distinct

Every species that ever lived, is "fully formed and distinct".
There's no such thing as crockoducks...............

There is not one shred of proof it was once something different or that it became something different.

Except for the fact that the find was predicted in both locality as well as features it would have.

Why would we expect to find animals before sea life? If you found that creation would be falsified. We expect the exact order we see...

Does it?
Why would that falsify creationism?
Please explain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

One of the biggest issues creationists seem to have with evolution is not having a good conceptual understanding of it.

Idd.

Like Ken Miller said once when describing the creationist position: "My evidence against evolution, is that I don't understand / believe it."

 

[tas8831]

Maybe he meant Goblins. Robotic goblins, obviously.

Yes, but hemogoblins - you have to watch out for them!

 

[tas8831]

Idd.

Like Ken Miller said once when describing the creationist position: "My evidence against evolution, is that I don't understand / believe it."

Apparently, at least one creationist that boasts of a high IQ on here claims this exact thing.