Evolution's Brick Wall

[Heissonear]

What have you done to Genesis One?

And how open are you at this point in knowledge-base to God doing things differently (and based on Scriptures to be revealed) in bringing this Creation to pass, with wisdom and mysteries natural man cannot attain or see?

Man had no clue Jesus was coming the first time, in when, how, and purpose.

Naturalistic men mock at how Eve came about, which is plain in the Scriptures.

And of the Old Testament miracles, people being born again by the Holy Spirit, ..........

Has Science produced an idol in many educated people? And such idol has produces gross sin within them? An idol they are to forsake, even leaning on their own understanding rather than leaning on Him for such?

Do many void such Scriptures as non-essential?

 

[Heissonear]

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, you have derailed the OP topic the fossil record in relation to the many Trees of Life diagrams.

Put up or go else where - show one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

It is by any form of biological sciences that Evolution is to be proved.

Knowledge is Power but not compared to the Most High, who has natural man idolizing Science before multitudes.

Compared to the Most High, everyone on this post has fractional knowledge that is worthless.

What ever happen to the Most High, particularly in said class and research rooms of the subject matter you exalt as very deep and rightful in finding conclusions about the Earth's past?

No, look around at the Naturalistic, without God in this world bunch.

Compromises have allowed Science to be the final conclusion in how to know truth.

 

[expos4ever]

What have you done to Genesis One?

We have read it as it was almost certainly intended - as a metaphor that communicates important theological truths.

You, like some others, always have to toss in some entirely superfluous preaching in which you presume to sit in self-righteous splendor, all the while casting fiery darts of judgment at those whose only “sin” is to accept the facts that nature lays at our feet.

 

[pitabread]

since we can arrange anything in hierarchy. including cars.

Except as we went through months ago, trying to arrange inanimate objects in a nested hierarchy is a rather pointless exercise.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, you have derailed the OP topic the fossil record in relation to the many Trees of Life diagrams.

Put up or go else where - show one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

It is by any form of biological sciences that Evolution is to be proved.

Knowledge is Power but not compared to the Most High, who has natural man idolizing Science before multitudes.

Compared to the Most High, everyone on this post has fractional knowledge that is worthless.

What ever happen to the Most High, particularly in said class and research rooms of the subject matter you exalt as very deep and rightful in finding conclusions about the Earth's past?

No, look around at the Naturalistic, without God in this world bunch.

Compromises have allowed Science to be the final conclusion in how to know truth.

First of all science is a limited epistemology restricted to natural phenomenon using an exclusively inductive approach. If your going to pontificate about the wonders of science I suggest you know what it is. What's more I have actually researched paleontology and comparative genomics which is a far cry from anything your going to do. So stop pretending the indignation and get into some of the reading because the fallacious rhetoric is boring me to tears.

 

[Heissonear]

First of all science is a limited epistemology restricted to natural phenomenon using an exclusively inductive approach. If your going to pontificate about the wonders of science I suggest you know what it is. What's more I have actually researched paleontology and comparative genomics which is a far cry from anything your going to do. So stop pretending the indignation and get into some of the reading because the fallacious rhetoric is boring me to tears.

The OP is correct, the scientific community does not face up to the conjecture evolution is based on.

Again, of the below Tree of Life diagram, show me one fossil sequence between creatures on the chart showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

The fossil record lacks the evidence that evolution happened. The foundation for proving evolution occurred is missing. There is not even one fossil sequence showing one lifeform morphologically changing into another lifeform over time.

Evolution is based on conjecture.

The fossil record shows evolution never happened.

Grand central group-think has pronounced any view except evolution is unacceptable.

The chief or Elite controllers all state evolution is derived by modern Earth science. But the primary scientific foundation to claim such is missing.

Zero times have people found evidence from strata showing evolution actually happened in the past, with evidence from the past in hand and displayed in paleontology texts. Zero times.

Modern biological sciences have zero real world examples to their claims. Only more conjecture.

 

[tas8831]

You are among the multitude that thinks "survival of the fittest", in evolution, means "the strong survive."

it is a pretty common misconception, but again, if I were going to argue against something, I would at least educate myself on the basics.

Right there in the Wiki:

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
​

Nothing about "strongest". That is your invention. Or that is the invention of the creationists who didn't know , either.

Odd that "Ken" the creationist did not respond to this outing of his naive notions of evolution.

 

[Heissonear]

The OP is right on target that the present established geologic and the like earth science communities are not facing up to evolution lacks historic proof, and only has claims based on conjecture.

Such are wayward communities.

It is not by accident the Most High who demands we walk by faith has allowed evolution to be void of observable historic evidence; where acceptance of evolution requires conjecture and faith.

The story is out for those to hear.

And because of the Bible and Holy Spirit, there are real reasons many people do not accept evolution, and who state evolution never happened. A very dynamic and real reason they put evolution in the trash bin.

The scientific Elite controlling "what happened in the Earths past" are full of conjecture. And most live without God in this world. I use to be one of them, even a scoffer of many things mentioned in the Bible that happened in the past, and looked down on how others accepted the Genesis One way the universe, Earth, and life came about. But how wrong I found out I was by openness and sensitivity to Him on High, full of Grace and Mercy.

Yes, Evolution has hit a brick wall. Nice thread.

 

[tas8831]

You just keep regurgiposting the same garbage over and over. And you expect people to believe that you are this educated super science guy? Hilarious.

The OP is correct, the scientific community does not face up to the conjecture evolution is based on.

Again, of the below Tree of Life diagram, show me one fossil sequence between creatures on the chart showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

View attachment 236715

The fossil record lacks the evidence that evolution happened. The foundation for proving evolution occurred is missing. There is not even one fossil sequence showing one lifeform morphologically changing into another lifeform over time.

Evolution is based on conjecture.

The fossil record shows evolution never happened.

Grand central group-think has pronounced any view except evolution is unacceptable.

The chief or Elite controllers all state evolution is derived by modern Earth science. But the primary scientific foundation to claim such is missing.

Zero times have people found evidence from strata showing evolution actually happened in the past, with evidence from the past in hand and displayed in paleontology texts. Zero times.

Modern biological sciences have zero real world examples to their claims. Only more conjecture.

 

[tas8831]

And to think, I even made it easy for you and pointed you to the last 16 minutes of a documentary that has actual scientists in it, who apparently are in the same camp you’re in, saying essentially what I did (that was my take on it anyway). As I suspected though, I just wasted my time... evidently you won’t research beyond your own opinion.

Project much?

A whole internet video?

Wow - I am so totally impressed at the extent of your knowledge.

Here is a video that demolished your 'no transitional fossil' PRATT:

 

[USincognito]

Nice rebound. Actually, we can prove certain things, like the Earth is not flat, we need oxygen and nutrients to survive, etc. We cannot prove the age of fossils or the age of the Earth, though.

I'd suggest reading this essay.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

That’s all good, but back to the discussion here, why isn’t there a lot of definite fossil evidence for a transition route from ape to man? After all the research & study that’s been done there should be something more than connecting the dots (as AV says). Government and science have based our whole education system on it.

It's a common fantasy on the part of Creationists that there is no evidence for evolution and that scientists just sit in labs all day collecting a paycheck while playing Solitaire or chatting on the Internet. That simply is not a reflection of reality however. There is a large body of consillient evidence from genetics, the fossil record and morphology supporting evidence, including hominid evolution. One just has to have the intellectual curiosity to actually look at it.

I saw somewhere that just the “thought-to-be” or “possibly” ape to Hominid transitional fossils could be put in a shoe box and there’d still be room for the shoes. I don’t have a clue how accurate (if at all) that statement is...

It was never a shoe box, but the claims of a coffin or a pool table were wrong when they were made 50 years ago. Heck, Homo Naledi alone would cover a pool table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi

To me, decisive evidence would be a trail of specific fossils indisputably bridging ape and modern man, but I don't think that will ever happen.

 

[USincognito]

Not for me. Genetics is more objective and provides more data. For example, here is one of the many kinds of genetic data that common ancestry explains and predicts. I can't see why it would be so successful if it weren't also true.

I've heard it said that even if we didn't have a single fossil we could reconstruct the history of life on earth using genetics alone.

 

[USincognito]

The "theory" goes that over MILLIONS of years, each animal evolves (through a process where a species adapts and modifies ultimately creating new forms of the original... the stronger versions surviving over time) whereas you actually tried to use a single generation as an analogy? That's not scholarly "Tas." And I wrote it that way because I don't hide behind screen names, my real name is Ken Rank. Nice to know you, have the last word. CYA.

1. The only people who put theory in scare quotes are those who don't understand what theory means in science.
2. Evolution doesn't have to take millions of years.
3. "Fittest" does not mean "strongest" or any other quantitative metric. It refers to reproductive success. There are only 1500 grizzly bears in the world, but there are 1.1 billion sheep.

 

[USincognito]

Inquiring, you are quite right evolutionists are not facing up to what real proof they have that evolution has occurred on Earth.

Look at the below illustration, and ask others posting here for one sequence of fossils that morphologically present one shown creature changing into the other claimed creature.

What you will get is conjecture.

And you will get macro-assemblages sequences said to represent evolution.

For example, like a creature with a fin where said fin turns to a boney fin and then turns into an arm, etc, but without fossils (fossil evidence) showing such inbetween morphological changes. They will present fossils with large gaps between them = macro-assemblages. Conjecture-based fossil mix and match, as the below shows.

Why do so many Creationists think that fossils are the only evidence for evolution? The genetic evidence is way more powerful. For instance the claim in bold is addressed by numerous fishopod fossils, but also through genetics.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/discovery-reveals-evolutionary-path-fins-fingers

We also have some really great fossil series like those for terrestrial to amphibious to marine cetaceans.

 

[tas8831]

I've heard it said that even if we didn't have a single fossil we could reconstruct the history of life on earth using genetics alone.

Pretty much.
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/treeoflifefo.jpg

 

[mark kennedy]

The OP is correct, the scientific community does not face up to the conjecture evolution is based on.

Again, of the below Tree of Life diagram, show me one fossil sequence between creatures on the chart showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

View attachment 236715

The fossil record lacks the evidence that evolution happened. The foundation for proving evolution occurred is missing. There is not even one fossil sequence showing one lifeform morphologically changing into another lifeform over time.

Evolution is based on conjecture.

The fossil record shows evolution never happened.

Grand central group-think has pronounced any view except evolution is unacceptable.

The chief or Elite controllers all state evolution is derived by modern Earth science. But the primary scientific foundation to claim such is missing.

Zero times have people found evidence from strata showing evolution actually happened in the past, with evidence from the past in hand and displayed in paleontology texts. Zero times.

Modern biological sciences have zero real world examples to their claims. Only more conjecture.

Thats not entirely true, consider this. A limited number of reptiles, birds and mammals emerge from tbe Ark. Species today are anywhere from 2 million to 60 million distict species. So what happenened if tbey didnt evolve? My point is this we are not opposed to evolution as a phenomenon in nature, that would be silly. Its the naturalistic assumptions related to the Darwinian tree of life, going all the way back and including tbe Big Bang. Our problem is not with evolurion itself, its the catagorical rejection of God as the creator at the point of origin. Life obviously evolved from there, just not on the scale they vainly imagine.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[USincognito]

I find it interesting that in the absence of convincing direct line transitional evidence...

No such absence exists.

...some proponents are beginning to say that more fossils aren’t needed because they just confuse the issue more.

I'm aware of no one saying that. Do you have a citation?

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.”

Yeah, any time someone goes, "what you're really saying" a straw man is sure to follow.

cross the gap between ape and man,

No such gap exists. Humans are members of family Hominidae and thus are apes. The can be no gap between humans and a clade of which we are a member.

...to me just another clever way to protect the theory of evolution and avoid the “broken line blues.”

The partsof this post that are not predicated on straw men are predicated on what appears to be incomplete knowledge because you seem to be suggesting that the fossil evidence is the only evidence for hominid evolution. Hominid transitional fossils are very powerful evidence for human evolution, but the genetic evidence is even more powerful.

Anything it seems, any idea or theory, except Creation is entertained.

"Creation" isn't a theory. It's a theological doctrine or proposition. I'm going to assume you mean "Creationism" which as an attempt to support a literal Genesis scientifically. Unfortunately, between geology and biology, Creationism was falsified 150 years ago.

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?”

It's a silly question because you're using "Creation" in a scientific context which doesn't make any sense and "evolutionists" aren't a thing.

 

[USincognito]

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

Why do Creationists pretend that we don't have such transitional fossils or that genetics doesn't exist?

 

[USincognito]

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.

You can't arrange early 1980s VW vehicles into a hierarchy. Too many swapped modules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_A_platform#A1

 

[mark kennedy]

No such absence exists.

So you advocate the nonexistence of nonexistace, thats scraping the bottom of the barrel I'd say.

I'm aware of no one saying that. Do you have a citation?

Your at least consistant, you want a citation for something people are not saying.

Yeah, any time someone goes, "what you're really saying" a straw man is sure to follow.

Or maybe its an inference.

No such gap exists. Humans are members of family Hominidae and thus are apes. The can be no gap between humans and a clade of which we are a member.[

No just a presupposed giant leap in adaptive evolution, marked by a complete a sense of transitional leading up to the emergence of the genus Homo. Nothing leading up to the chimpanzee clad whatsoever, and that a sense covers 5 million years at least.

What parts of this post are not predicated on straw men are predicated on what appears to be incomplete knowledge because you seem to be suggesting that the fossil evidence is the only evidence for hominid evolution. Hominid transitional fossils are very powerful evidence for human evolution, but the genetic evidence is even more powerful.

What you never show an interest in is the actual evidence. All these years and Ive never seen you deal with the actual fossils. But your more then happy to pontificate in circles around them.

]Creation" isn't a theory. It's a theological doctrine or proposition. I'm going to assume you mean "Creationism" which as an attempt to support a literal Genesis scientifically. Unfortunately, between geology and biology, Creationism was falsified 150 years ago.

With no such thing as paleontology or genetics the doctrine of creation was assumed untrue with little regard for evidence. It continues to go before evidence which is how Darwinian presuppositional reason does this to this day.

[QuoteI]t's a silly question because you're using "Creation" in a scientific context which doesn't make any sense and "evolutionists" aren't a thing.[/QUOTE]

No, we are not talking about evolutionists, this is about Darwinian presuppositional logic being fallacious, a priori, atheistic materialism. We can at least agree that's not a real thing.