Evolution's Brick Wall

[Astrophile]

What I have always found fascinating is that when we look at animals that supposedly evolved from lower forms of animals... those lower forms die off in favor of the more advanced version. For example, the first "horse" (Eohippus) was basically dog sized and it no longer exists. As it "evolved" into a larger, stronger, and more resourceful animal, the previous version dies off. However... that isn't the case with humans!? The early version of man, the Ape, is still alive and well and would be thriving if not for man's encroachment into their living areas. So when it comes to other animals, the previous version goes extinct, but in man's case... the very earliest version is still alive and all the versions inbetween are gone that led up to man? That doesn't balance out against all we see among all other animals.

I think that this is wrong. Certainly there are various living species of apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orang-utans and gibbons), but they are not 'the early version of man'. The species of apes that were our ancestors (Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, etc.) are long since extinct.

 

[Job 33:6]

What I have always found fascinating is that when we look at animals that supposedly evolved from lower forms of animals... those lower forms die off in favor of the more advanced version. For example, the first "horse" (Eohippus) was basically dog sized and it no longer exists. As it "evolved" into a larger, stronger, and more resourceful animal, the previous version dies off. However... that isn't the case with humans!? The early version of man, the Ape, is still alive and well and would be thriving if not for man's encroachment into their living areas. So when it comes to other animals, the previous version goes extinct, but in man's case... the very earliest version is still alive and all the versions inbetween are gone that led up to man? That doesn't balance out against all we see among all other animals.

Yea, im sorry but this is just a misunderstanding of science. People are not considered descendants of animals like chimpanzees. Our ancestors are gone just as horses are.

Are there apes alive today that to some extent resemble us? Sure. Theyre distant cousins.

But the same could be said for other animals too, like lions and tigers or odd toed ungulates like rhinos and hippos, or pumas and cheetahs, dolphins and whales, lobsters and shrimp etc.

But the more direct ancestors that would be comparable to eohippus, are extinct.

Its good though to ponder these questions. Legitimate questions and thoughts are what science builds on. And better an honest question than...denial or burying ones head in the sand.

 

[Job 33:6]

Come on though, you have to admit that if the eye of the needle was ever threaded with a connected chain of fossils that actually bridged primitive life forms to modern man, evolutionists would run with it discrediting Genesis and possibly the whole Bible. Kind of like the Jaws movie dialogue, you say “genetics” and “it looks as though,” and everyone says huh… what? But, you say indisputable amounts of “linked fossil evidence confirming the line”...

SFS is a biologist, so his bias will run toward genes. But i enjoy discussing fossils.

What is it that you are seeking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

 

[mark kennedy]

All I did was point out that your statement that "alleles are traits" is technically incorrect as alleles refer to gene variants. Getting defensive about this is what has dragged this out.

It's like if you were claim that instructions to build furniture is furniture. It's a statement that doesn't make sense.



I never said that alleles are not a reference to traits (in the sense that gene expression gives rise to traits). I just said they are not one and the same thing. That's it.



Considering the number of times you get corrected here, perhaps you should take your own advice.

Ive just seen too much of this and your going down that road. You could have made an excellent point about alternate sequences and by now we could be knee deep in how alternate sequences happen. Your trolling dude, it's within the rules but if you are going to spend this much time on the subject you should spend some time getting acquainted with the on going research. There is a wall, there are limits and your never going to appreciate what adaptive evolution is or how it happens trolling up ill will in a discussion forum. I just hate to see someone spending so much time on such exquisite subject material and never stopping to sample the depth of the subject matter. So far all you have come up with is a pedantic argument you got from a quick Google search and an online definition. You have completely abandoned the substance of the topic, the history and sublties of the use of that term. More importantly you might never get a chance to appreciate how much is being learned these days about how living system adapt and improve over time. Instead you focus on biting personal attacks, it's not going to hurt my feelings, just don't like seeing yet another Darwinian zealot spend so much time on wasteful fallacious rhetoric.

Knowledge is power as Francis Bacon once said, the use of tools, mental and physical he believed was the hope of mankind. Genetics is available, you don't have to chase it down in libraries like you do paleontology. I don't keep coming back to this discussions because I like the sport of refuting a guy like you, honestly it's fish in a barrel. I always learn something and there is always something more to learn. Spend some time learning about actual genetics before you derail another opportunity to appreciate the depth of the subject matter. Or you can be that guy in every thread, relentlessly trolling creationists and never learning anything.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

SFS is a biologist, so his bias will run toward genes. But i enjoy discussing fossils.

What is it that you are seeking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

Again with that convoluted scattergram. What is it about that thing evolutionists find so appealing?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is it about that thing evolutionists find so appealing?

$

 

[mark kennedy]

$

Perhaps

 

[Job 33:6]

Again with that convoluted scattergram. What is it about that thing evolutionists find so appealing?

What?

I was just asking the person what he was looking for.

 

[inquiring mind]

I was just asking the person what he was looking for.

Good discussion.

The Evolutionist’s argument seems to be evolving . I find it interesting that in the absence of convincing direct line transitional evidence, some proponents are beginning to say that more fossils aren’t needed because they just confuse the issue more. To me what they’re really saying is, we don’t need more “lack of fact-bearing evidence that doesn’t support the theory of evolution.”

The new narrative seems to be moving away from a “direct line” to what I believe some refer to as a “braided stream” to cross the gap between ape and man, to me just another clever way to protect the theory of evolution and avoid the “broken line blues.” And again, to me, it’s like they’re saying, Oh it happened – it’s just so mixed up with interbreeding and dead end trails that it may be impossible to ever draw a straight line between the two. Anything it seems, any idea or theory, except Creation is entertained... I’m sticking with the scriptures and trying to get used to being called liar-liar.

The only question I asked in the OP was, “How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?”

 

[pitabread]

Ive just seen too much of this and your going down that road. You could have made an excellent point about alternate sequences and by now we could be knee deep in how alternate sequences happen. Your trolling dude, it's within the rules but if you are going to spend this much time on the subject you should spend some time getting acquainted with the on going research. There is a wall, there are limits and your never going to appreciate what adaptive evolution is or how it happens trolling up ill will in a discussion forum. I just hate to see someone spending so much time on such exquisite subject material and never stopping to sample the depth of the subject matter. So far all you have come up with is a pedantic argument you got from a quick Google search and an online definition. You have completely abandoned the substance of the topic, the history and sublties of the use of that term. More importantly you might never get a chance to appreciate how much is being learned these days about how living system adapt and improve over time. Instead you focus on biting personal attacks, it's not going to hurt my feelings, just don't like seeing yet another Darwinian zealot spend so much time on wasteful fallacious rhetoric.

Knowledge is power as Francis Bacon once said, the use of tools, mental and physical he believed was the hope of mankind. Genetics is available, you don't have to chase it down in libraries like you do paleontology. I don't keep coming back to this discussions because I like the sport of refuting a guy like you, honestly it's fish in a barrel. I always learn something and there is always something more to learn. Spend some time learning about actual genetics before you derail another opportunity to appreciate the depth of the subject matter. Or you can be that guy in every thread, relentlessly trolling creationists and never learning anything.

Go back to my original post. All I did was point the difference between alleles and traits. That's it. You're being way too defensive about all of this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go back to my original post. All I did was point the difference between alleles and traits. That's it. You're being way too defensive about all of this.

Would you please tell me what an "allele" is, in words I can understand?

 

[expos4ever]

This is from the Creation & Evolution forum statement of purpose:

• When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

Since you’re disagreeing with the position I presented, it looks to me as though you're the one who needs to be posting supporting statements, instead of “liar, liar – pants on fire!” I provided support anyway... so where’s your supportive disagreement evidence?

It is UNIVERSALLY known that the person making the claim has the responsibility to provide the evidence to support their claim. The rule you cite does not change this.

I GUARANTEE no moderator will disagree with this as it is a time-tested universally accepted principle. Besides, suppose that, as I suspect, there are basically ZERO scientists who would agree with your claim (without it being heavily qualified). How am I supposed to give evidence that zero scientists agree with you?

 

[expos4ever]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

Let’s say this is true as written - no completely verifiable route will likely be found.

The problem is that this does almost no damage to the TOE. Consider the OJ Simpson murder case. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty, even though the case is not 100% ironclad.

And I suspect this is even more the case re the theory of evolution: imagine a jigsaw puzzle of Donald Trump with, say, 10 pieces missing. Is it still clearly Donald? Of course.

 

[Job 33:6]

Good discussion.

The Evolutionist’s argument seems to be evolving . I find it interesting that in the absence of convincing direct line transitional evidence, some proponents are beginning to say that more fossils aren’t needed because they just confuse the issue more. To me what they’re really saying is, we don’t need more “lack of fact-bearing evidence that doesn’t support the theory of evolution.”

The new narrative seems to be moving away from a “direct line” to what I believe some refer to as a “braided stream” to cross the gap between ape and man, to me just another clever way to protect the theory of evolution and avoid the “broken line blues.” And again, to me, it’s like they’re saying, Oh it happened – it’s just so mixed up with interbreeding and dead end trails that it may be impossible to ever draw a straight line between the two. Anything it seems, any idea or theory, except Creation is entertained... I’m sticking with the scriptures and trying to get used to being called liar-liar.

The only question I asked in the OP was, “How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?”

When it comes to fossils, there is really no way to know what specific route was our own (what is most direct, ie our direct parent). Because we cannot extract dna from fossils. At least not old ones.

For example, tiktaalik is considered a transitional fossil that is of an ancestral species. But nobody could really ever know if tiktaalik is a direct ancestor or if this species is just a related cousin or second cousin etc. Because we can't extract DNA from something that old.

But we do still consider it a transitional, given it's placement in the fossil succession and the understanding that cousins and second cousins that went extinct can be considered transitionals as well, regardless of if they are direct parents/ancestors. On the basis that morphologically they are a mix of what was before them and what came after.

Not sure if this helps.

 

[Job 33:6]

And really, the only way a fossil can be discovered to be an evolutionary dead end, it would usually only happen if a new fossil discovered, fine tuned our understanding of the transition, be it temporally or morphologically.

For increases in precision, there has to be the acceptance of non precise fossil finds. Or maybe just a part of the time at least.

 

[xianghua]

SFS is a biologist, so his bias will run toward genes. But i enjoy discussing fossils.

What is it that you are seeking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

i think he refer to the foot shape for instance. a monkey foot for instance is different from human one. also remember that any fossil cant prove evolution since we can arrange anything in hierarchy. including cars.

 

[Heissonear]

Here’s the thing: since the actual science is so overwhelmingly against you, you and your ilk are forced to resort to mean-spirited, baseless, pontification and character assassination.

You attack the character and motives of those who think differently from you, starved as you are of actual evidence to support your position.

When masses of society go wayward, and have grandscale group-think, anyone pointing out credible differences may be stoned with words.

And anyone tied to an established denomination of biblical belief are possibly not open to see their predicament.

In line with the OP, the fossil record proves species and not evolution.

As per scientific observation, every creature organized into the various Trees of Life that have been drafted each have one major alarming common problem - zero fossil record proof of the morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Did the Creator make this world or did it on its own evolve through natural processes over time?

Or did natural processes continue after the Creator formed a realm that showed natural processes maturity, like Eve? With a fossil record showing only Created species - no evolution? Did Eve become a potential fossil?

The Bible and the One who wrote it and resides within us can lead us on the correct path about Creation verses Evolution. In fact for most it does not come through loads of natural science learning but through Scriptures quickened and/or through convection when someone hears "Man and other creatures evolved on Earth through Evolution" - a conviction that such statement is errant. Simple as that. Hearing Him and heeding His Conviction "That is not true".

The Creator has His ways we are to have openess to and an inquiring mind to learn from Him and His Creation.

Science alone, not being subject to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, can and has become an idol many have exalted within themselves - as opening their eyes to a promoted truth of what has geologically and biologically happened in the Earths past. Science has in our day become an idol that has produced Scientism. This idol resides within masses of educated people. This idol is formed by Dark Principalities in our day that many have fallen prey to.

Repentance is not an option but a necessesity in our day to come clean from the error that has swept many into false talk, corrupt thinking and errant proclaiming. Multitudes having an errant walk and talk, that need repentance. Science has become King within many, in what leads them and they exalt before others, knowingly or not.

 

[Heissonear]

..................I’m sticking with the scriptures and trying to get used to being called liar-liar.

Of the Four Soils, persecution was part of the mix in lack of Fruit.

And God is nuturing Fruit.

Good thread.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Not poking here... just want to clarify. I don't have protective labels; I have to account for my comments just like you.

 

[Heissonear]

Yea, im sorry but this is just a misunderstanding of science. People are not considered descendants of animals like chimpanzees. Our ancestors are gone just as horses are.

Are there apes alive today that to some extent resemble us? Sure. Theyre distant cousins.

But the same could be said for other animals too, like lions and tigers or odd toed ungulates like rhinos and hippos, or pumas and cheetahs, dolphins and whales, lobsters and shrimp etc.

But the more direct ancestors that would be comparable to eohippus, are extinct.

Its good though to ponder these questions. Legitimate questions and thoughts are what science builds on. And better an honest question than...denial or burying ones head in the sand.

Evolution, without fossil record evidence showing evolution of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time, becomes based on conjecture.

Pure and simple. A belief based naturalistic view of lifeforms and Earth's past. Principalities lacking scientific-based evidence. Conjecture-based.