Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

Seriously? What you have written here is not sense, though it is uncommonly common. It seems your inquiring mind has paid scant, to nil, attention to any of the evidence and argument presented to you. It is as though, from the outset, you have not entertained any serious intent of considering such evidence and argument. I think you owe those who have made the effort to present such information an apology for wasting their time.

My full moniker was to be ‘inquiring mind and a discerning heart,’ but it was too long, so because of the last part there I’ll forego the apology.

 

[Job 33:6]

My full moniker was to be ‘inquiring mind and a discerning heart,’ but it was too long, so because of the last part there I’ll forego the apology.

You still haven't explained how the prediction was made in the discovery of tiktaalik. Unless you think it was all just a lucky coincidence.

 

[Heissonear]

For the younger folks here: If it were me, yes, I’d go to science class, because there have been and continue to be wonderful advancements. But, I’d keep God and my Bible very close at all times for an anchor, or some of these people will have you off in never-never land.

Very wise words in thie current circumstances the Lord Jesus has set up in the modern time we are experiencing.

 

[inquiring mind]

You still haven't explained how the prediction was made in the discovery of tiktaalik. Unless you think it was all just a lucky coincidence.

If you provided a link to the prediction, and how they did it, I missed it.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you provided a link to the prediction, and how they did it, I missed it.

Facepalm.

If you missed my description of how they did it, what do you think I have been referring to for the past 20 pages of discussion while talking about it?

Why are you just now asking me what prediction was made, when I've posted a description of it maybe 2 or 3 times now.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, for @inquiring mind

This is from post #1260. It's a description of the prediction made for you and anyone else who missed it and has no clue as to what we have been discussing for the past week.

"And I always turn to the popular example. The devonian is the age of fish. Fish dominated devonian strata. Terrestrial life dominates the Carboniferous. If evolution were true. Then fish-like tetrapods should exist in the mid devonian, after domination of fish but before the terrestrial takeover of the Carboniferous.

Not only that, but genetically, amphibians according to evolution will also be found between fish and reptiles, as reptiles are those that dominate the Carboniferous and fish dominated the devonian.

Knowing this, a team of scientists from Philadelphia and Chicago used a geologic map to find middle aged devonian rock, aged between the dominance of fish and the dominance of terrestrial vertebrates. This rock was in a random area in the Canadian tundra. That's just where the rock extends. The travelled specifically to rock consistent of shallow marine deposits, things like stream deposits and alluvial fan deposits, and they found a fish with legs.

That is tiktaalik. It has scales like a fish, but it also has rotating wrists, robust shoulders, eyes on top of it's head like an alligator. But had find Ray's rather than toes, and it had gills and spiracles on it's head indicating that it could breath both air and water. Neck vertebrae are unfused like a tetrapod, but it's jaw is shaped like a fishes.

So they truly found a part fish part tetrapod animal right where evolution predicted that such a thing would exist up in a devonian outcrop in Canada.

So what is the response from evolution deniars? Do they believe the discovery of tiktaalik was pure chance? What if I named another fossil also discovered through prediction based on the theory of evolution? What if I named 10 more? Or 100?

And if anyone wants, I can talk about a another transitional."

 

[inquiring mind]

Facepalm.

If you missed my description of how they did it, what do you think I have been referring to for the past 20 pages of discussion while talking about it?

Why are you just now asking me what prediction was made, when I've posted a description of it maybe 2 or 3 times now.

I hate to admit it, but that was the second time I trusted what I was being told here. Now, I'd like to see it myself. I never could find it, and apparently you can't either.

 

[Job 33:6]

I hate to admit it, but that was the second time I trusted what I was being told here. Now, I'd like to see it myself. I never could find it, and apparently you can't either.

Find what? Do you want to hear the scientists discuss it?

 

[inquiring mind]

Find what? Do you want to hear the scientists discuss it?

I don't want your rehash; present an article on how they did it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't want your rehash; present an article on how they did it.

Here is an hour long lecture on it, narrated by the lead scientist. He repeats the same things that I am telling you here.

 

[Job 33:6]

and if you want @inquiring mind , he wrote a book on it as well, and there is a tv show that played on pbs, and there are the research papers that I already linked in this very discussion that talk about it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I hate to admit it, but that was the second time I trusted what I was being told here. Now, I'd like to see it myself. I never could find it, and apparently you can't either.

You must be absolutely completely in the dark about this stuff. As if I just completely made all of this up. This is public knowledge, if you don't know it, it just demonstrates that you aren't familiar with paleontology at large.

And if you attempted to find it but could not, it just shows that you either never tried to begin with, or...well, the only other possibility is that you could be scientifically inept.

This isn't the first time I've done this. You keep making these blatently false but arrogant claims. "Oh you can't do that" and "you don't know what you're talking about", but every time you just demonstrate that you have no understanding of science.

 

[Job 33:6]

And the question how tiktaaliks location was predicted, still remains unanswered by evolution deniers.

 

[Job 33:6]

The guy has a new york times best seller, a tv show in pbs, two very well known publications in nature, and you are under the impression that no publications exist describing this prediction or tiktaaliks discovery. unbelievable.

As if you have been in the dark for years, unaware of what we have discovered and have been discovering for the past 200 years.

 

[Jimmy D]

I hate to admit it, but that was the second time I trusted what I was being told here. Now, I'd like to see it myself. I never could find it, and apparently you can't either.

KomatiiteBIF is correct, you really have no business attempting to debate the topic if you are so ignorant of something like Shubin’s work.

And to imply that he is being less than honest after the effort he’s gone to to attempt to explain it to you?

It’s embarrassing.

 

[pitabread]

For the younger folks here: If it were me, yes, I’d go to science class, because there have been and continue to be wonderful advancements. But, I’d keep God and my Bible very close at all times for an anchor, or some of these people will have you off in never-never land.

That last comment seems strange to me.

A number of years ago I was doing something similar: I was learning about different belief systems so for a time I attended random churches. I'd go to a new random church each week.

But at no point did I feel the need to have a science textbook or any other type of "anchor" with me. That just seems odd to me; like one is afraid of having their beliefs challenged.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think this is part of the problem. If you're approaching this as a challenge where people have to try to change your mind, of course it's going to be a failure. If you don't want to be convinced of something, you never will be. So what's the point?

You're assuming that is the only reason I don't see evolution as a fact. Of course I could say that's why you believe in evolution, because it's what you prefer it over the alternative.

The truth of the matter is, just because some people prefer to believe one thing, that far from means they cannot be convinced of something else. Maybe that's you, but I'm a realist, I want the truth whether it's what I prefer or not, whether I like it or not. Yours is just another untrue convenient assumption.

The only reason is if you have an interest in learning about biology

Then you are saying I should just take your word that if one knows biology they have to agree with evolution....has that ever worked for you?

 

[pitabread]

The truth of the matter is, just because some people prefer to believe one thing, that far from means they cannot be convinced of something else.

Sure, I never said otherwise. My point is that you are the one in charge of changing your own mind about something, nobody else.

But all of that is irrelevant. Learning about something isn't predicated on changing one's mind.

Then you are saying I should just take your word that if one knows biology they have to agree with evolution....has that ever worked for you?

Do you think that understanding requires agreement? What I'm getting from your posts is that you are equating the two. But they are not the same thing.

It's possible to learn about a subject without necessarily agreeing with it. Just like you can learn about evolution, but you don't have to agree with it to do so.

 

[inquiring mind]

@ KomatiiteBIF
@ Jimmy D
Well, I spent an hour of my life watching his presupposed macro evolutionary model being sold. Yes, he’s a biology expert who can find Devonian rock; yes, he found a very strange fish (I would venture to guess there were a lot of strange creatures 375 million years ago). And, due to his expertise he can articulate quite a fill-in the gaps picture of his proposed fish to tetrapod transition, even if it’s just with a fish that can do push-ups.

I bet there has been more digging on that Arctic Island in the last ten years than there was in the California gold rush. Where’s all the ‘a little more’ and ‘a little less’ transitioned Tic Tacs if that is such fertile ground for evidence? The gigantic jump from a fish doing push-ups to one that can walk, to me anyway, is still ridiculous. As I said, he just presupposes macro evolution and makes everything fit that model. Right off the bat in his introduction, it was said that because his find had similar features to land animals it represents the transition from fish to land animals... so much for open-mindedness.

You guys are right, I don’t need to be in this argument, but I don’t think you do either. I’ve never claimed to be an authority, what’s really embarrassing is that you’ve hung your hat on another flash-in-the-pan find that has gone nowhere as far as proving macro evolution. Or maybe you're all satisfied with just collecting, what you call, evidence. That presentation is almost ten years old.

 

[loveofourlord]

Because not all Europeans came over, that's why. But if the species known as Apes evolved into humans, there shouldn't be apes just as there isn't the pre-evolutionary versions of pretty much all animals.

umm....no, a group of apes branched off from the main group and became eventually humans.

Here is a better anology, if dogs came from wolf kind, how come there are still wolves. Evolution doesn't expect everything to evolve upward, we evolved from fish and bacteria, there are still fish and bacteria around. Heck how would any ancetral kind evolve into anything but 1 species by your concept.