Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

All research and progression alignments seem biased to me, that’s why I rely on God’s Word (Romans 1:18-23). Evolutionists keep pointing to changes, like in ammonite sutures, as though that seals the deal as far as common descent goes. But, did they really change into something ‘else’ altogether... No. At the end of the day they are still ammonites (or were) albeit with variations. People probably find and sell more ammonites than any other fossil, but despite the variety, and yes, with complex micro-evolution changes, they still call them ammonites. It’s just the brick wall again as far as macro-evolution goes.

Where is the ‘matter of fact’ (no conjecture or connect-the-dots) “that this particular species made the big change, this is the manner it was done in, and these are the transition fossils that prove it?” Hey, that’s a big order, but evolutionists are the ones who have to have the scientific proof and verify everything, and they’ve just not been able to put the spotlight on it. Yes, some combination of fossil and genetic geographical distribution appears apparent and certainly fits the evolution model, but it doesn’t prove the theory of evolution correct either.

With that, i would just restate Pitabreads exact question. In your opinion, what is "something else"? If that "something else" ranges between an oppossom and a kangaroo, then its settled in favor of evolution.

The transition depicted by biostratigraphic distribution and the fossil succession spans many varying species of marsupial. It spans from oppossums, to microbiotheria to bandicoots to kangaroos and it connects marsupials in the fossil record in a temporal and morphological order. And it ranges from asia and north america, down to south america, then across antarctica and into australia, in a temporal order in the geologic succession.

So there is the fossil succession. Just as there were fish in the silurian-devonian, half fish half amphibians in the mid devonian, and tetrapods in the mid to late devonian, so too are there masupials that become more and more derived over time spanning from the cretaceous into the paleogene.

The transition is there, it is temporaly isolated, it is geographically isolated, over time it directs us closer and closer to australia where modern day masupials dominate.

 


The other question is, where is the DNA evidence?

Well, as you know, most biologists would suggest that the patterns in DNA are better evidence for evolution than the fossil succession.

And so there is much research that states that these same phylogenetic patterns exist in our DNA
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000436

All that remains is the question of what mechanism would allow this DNA transition and subsequent morphological transition in the fossil succession to occur. And that mechanism as well has been observed, ie we see mutations, we see subsequent morphological changes in lifeforms. Just as an indian elephant and africa elephant have DNA that records those mutations, so do marsupials. And biologists can look at the DNA of these animals, and can look at where mutations have occurred. Our DNA records these changes. The mutations are observed, fixation is observed natural selection is observed, morphological change and increased fitness is observed, speciation is observed.

The evidence really couldn't be much better. What else would one need aside from perhaps a time machine and a million years so that they could personally see it all happen from start to finish?

European
Herpetotheriidae
Peradectidae


North America
Didelphimorphia
opossums

South America
Sparassodonta
Microbiotheria

Antarctica
Didelphimorphia
Microbiotheria

Australia
metatherians
extant species / Diprotodontia

 

[Ophiolite]

Does that include verysincere's posts, when he was here screaming his head off like some prepubescent evolutionist?

After I started calling him on it, he suddenly had to leave.

I don't recall any of his posts, so I don't know if he was a charlatan. I don't think Colter is a charlatan, esle I would not have bothered to give him unsolicited advice.

I notice you haven't responded to my comment about you running away. Are you running away? Did you just realise the answers were tougher than the questions?

 

[Job 33:6]

And really, it all makes perfect sense. Why else would Indian elephants randomly be in India? Where no other elephants exist aside from Africa. They aren't in Australia, they aren't in the middle East or Europe. They aren't randomly in Antarctica next to the marsupials.

They're in a specific location in India because they shared a common ancestor with Indian elephants.

But they are now different, morphologically from African elephants just as marsupial opposums are different from marsupial kangaroos. But both are marsupials just as both of the elephants are elephants.

It's just a matter of how much time and how many changes have occurred between the ancestral species in the fossil record and what species live today.

The further back in time you look, the more and more the fossils change. In the transition.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Me, earlier:

The above denial of macroevolution was written by a human with vestigial digits on his feet, mute evidence of an ancestral species that grasped things with the hind limbs.

Nope, written by one made in the likeness of God, so that he may rule over animals and creatures of all kinds.

These two truths are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, that was the size of the font when I transferred it. The article is about the history of forced conversion in Christianity.

You do have the facility to change font size with anything you have copied and pasted: the T icon fifth from the left on the menu bar.

 

[Colter]

You do have the facility to change font size with anything you have copied and pasted: the T icon fifth from the left on the menu bar.

I didn’t want to. Did you read the article?

 

[Ophiolite]

I didn’t want to. Did you read the article?

Well, you are obviously free to leave it as it was. I routinely change the font on any material I import, if necessary. I do this to make it easier for readers and thus out of respect for them. Perhaps you hadn't considered that aspect.

I did not read the article since the font size alone was sufficient to discourage me.

 

[Colter]

Well, you are obviously free to leave it as it was. I routinely change the font on any material I import, if necessary. I do this to make it easier for readers and thus out of respect for them. Perhaps you hadn't considered that aspect.

I did not read the article since the font size alone was sufficient to discourage me.

I figured you didn’t.



Christian history institute.

Interview — Converting By the Sword

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword

 

[AV1611VET]

I notice you haven't responded to my comment about you running away. Are you running away? Did you just realise the answers were tougher than the questions?

I don't "run away," unless I suspect the person is being less than honest, or I find myself having to repeat myself, or I ask questions and get a paragraph or three in response, with the "answer" embedded in it somewhere.

 

[inquiring mind]

But what is something "else"?

With that, i would just restate Pitabreads exact question. In your opinion, what is "something else"?

Pardon the language, but a picture (clip) may be worth a thousand words.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't "run away," unless I suspect the person is being less than honest, or I find myself having to repeat myself, or I ask questions and get a paragraph or three in response, with the "answer" embedded in it somewhere.

So which was it in my case?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know your motivation for ignoring this. I don't know your motivation for denying it. I don't know your motivation for making the silly claims you do.

I know....

Defense mechanism to be able to clinge to a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs.
Anything that doesn't fit the belief, is discarded / denied / ignored by default.

 

[AV1611VET]

So which was it in my case?

Okay, I wen't clear back to Page 28 to find the conversation and can't find it.

So I'll have to rely on my memory, which means I could be wrong.

But you said something about being born again, and when I asked you why you gave up:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... to become an agnostic, got some vague answer about being raised in a Christian home (as if that was supposed to be an answer).

So I asked directly if you were saved, and still got some vague academic bologna.

So I just said HAVE A NICE DAY and let it go at that.

Frankly I don't think you know what you are, and I'm not going to play twenty questions.

 

[Ophiolite]

Okay, I wen't clear back to Page 28 to find the conversation and can't find it.

So I'll have to rely on my memory, which means I could be wrong.

But you said something about being born again, and when I asked you why you gave up:
.

At no point did I give up. I gave you honest focused answers. More than once you appeared not to understand them. I re-read my posts; they seemed clear to me. I suspect, but do not know, that my wordlview may be so different from yours you simply cannot recognise it.

... to become an agnostic, got some vague answer about being raised in a Christian home (as if that was supposed to be an answer).

I was giving you important background. It may not be important to you, but as it is important to me and you were asking questions that went to the root of my character so it seemed both honest and necessary to provide the information. I'm sorry you couldn't see its relevance.

My upbringing, as a Christian (which is different from "being raised in a Christian home" - not a phrase I think I used) provided the ethical structure and fabric of my worldview.

So I asked directly if you were saved, and still got some vague academic bologna.

I reflected deeply on your question and gave an answer that exposed more of my persona than I am accustomed to share on forums. You consider that respectful and honest attempt to be "vague academic bologna".

Here is it again, rewritten. Why don't you think about it carefully this time?

Am I saved? I've never really thought about it before. To me the important part of Christianity is not what one gets out of it (eternal life), but what one puts into it (concern for others). Now, having thought about it, I think I am saved, but probably not in the way you mean. So what's your definition of being saved?

But you decided this was vague academic bologna and exited stage left.

Evaluation: AV1611VET should definitely try harder. I'm just not sure he can.

 

[pitabread]

Pardon the language, but a picture (clip) may be worth a thousand words.

Indeed, although maybe not in the way you that you think.

 

[Job 33:6]

Pardon the language, but a picture (clip) may be worth a thousand words.

Granted the predator is science fiction, but the predator also has morphological qualities that are similar to man (because the predator has to be shaped like a man in order for a person to wear the predator suit).

I would think that there is a larger difference between an oppossum and a kangaroo than a man and predator.

But genetically and morphologically, they arent as different as one might think.

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind

Here is an animal called a tree kangaroo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree-kangaroo

Is it a kangaroo? Is it some sort of koala with a kangaroo like tail and kangaroo like long feet and a kangaroo shaped head with a long kangaroo like tail?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musky_rat-kangaroo

Here is a rat kangaroo. Genetically and morphologically, they are not too far off. And the line of what is "something else" and what is not becomes blurred the further you go back over the fossil succession and through the world of genetics. But at no point is there ever a clear black and white transformation from one animal to another. You wouldnt find a transition where one animal just transforms into another, just as you wouldnt find a small marsupial like a rat kangaroo, giving birth to a large marsupial like a regular kangaroo or a tree kangaroo.

But they really arent that different, ultimately. And most can understand the concept of a common marsupial ancestor that ultimate gave birth, where its lineages slightly changed over a very long time. Some becoming kangaroos, some tree kangaroos, some rat kangaroos. But the rat kangaroo and the regular kangaroo, really are worlds apart, and yet similar enough that with an understanding of the fossil record and genetics, it becomes quite clear that they are related.

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind

See my posts above. And this is why "something else" needs a technical description. Because, as far as we can tell, this is pretty straight forward where we have transitionals linking plenty of different animals, such as rat kangaroos, tree kangaroos, regular kangaroos and koalas. And, a grade schooler could probably visibly identify the similarities in these animals up front. But we can identify a fossil succession that links them and mutations in their DNA that link them as well.

But, at the same time, they are relatively different, morphologically. A kangaroo does look quite different than a koala. But not so much that you couldnt see that they are related.

So if evolution can enable a mouse or a koala or a kangaroo, to share a common ancestor, yes theyre all marsupials, but morphologically they have some extremes to them. And if these animals can share a common ancestor, there is no question that...a dolphin and a whale can too. Or a fish and shark, or a rhino and a hippo, or a chimpanzee and a baboon or...a salamander and a lizard etc.

 

[Heissonear]

@inquiring mind

See my posts above. And this is why "something else" needs a technical description. Because, as far as we can tell, this is pretty straight forward where we have transitionals linking plenty of different animals, such as rat kangaroos, tree kangaroos, regular kangaroos and koalas. And, a grade schooler could probably visibly identify the similarities in these animals up front. But we can identify a fossil succession that links them and mutations in their DNA that link them as well.

But, at the same time, they are relatively different, morphologically. A kangaroo does look quite different than a koala. But not so much that you couldnt see that they are related.

So if evolution can enable a mouse or a koala or a kangaroo, to share a common ancestor, yes theyre all marsupials, but morphologically they have some extremes to them. And if these animals can share a common ancestor, there is no question that...a dolphin and a whale can too. Or a fish and shark, or a rhino and a hippo, or a chimpanzee and a baboon or...a salamander and a lizard etc.

You mention so many creatures - but you supply zero set sequence between any two different creatures showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Is that clear? You and other evolutionists are void of proof that evolution has occurred.

And do not face up to your dilemma, and seem to pretend your not standing on conjecture.

 

[inquiring mind]

Granted the predator is science fiction, but the predator also has morphological qualities that are similar to man (because the predator has to be shaped like a man in order for a person to wear the predator suit).

I’m not sure you got my inference with the video... that things can have a ‘somewhat’ similar design, and yet not be the same. And a fictional character as an example shouldn’t be too foreign to conjecture. The bottom line is nothing else acts like a human, nothing else reasons like a human, and despite all that, it's ironic that only a human (or some anyway) would ever consider themselves as having been ‘something else’ at one time.