Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

Are you listening to yourself? That so-called challenge is the most basic question I can possibly ask. You want me to believe evolution, I ask you to prove evolution.

And you turn around and call the most obvious question on the matter "dishonest"?

Bizarre.

Here is, and I won't call it proof because nothing in science is regarded as proof when it's rather a plausible explanation, but here is why I would say evolution is true. And I would be curious to hear of anyone's alternative explanations. @inquiring mind this is for you as well.

People can, and have used genetics, to predict the location of fossils.

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 to late 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]

Here is, and I won't call it proof because nothing in science is regarded as proof when it's rather a plausible explanation, but here is why I would say evolution is true. And I would be curious to hear of anyone's alternative explanations. @inquiring mind this is for you as well.

People can, and have used genetics, to predict the location of fossils.

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 to late 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.

I’m certainly not denying micro evolution and some predictability in those situations, but even with that and the millions upon millions of miracles in God’s creation are you saying there is no chance that even several finds aren’t just some sort of anomaly in both predictability and life form? And, are you sure there wasn’t some reverse predicting going on after the finds?

 

[VirOptimus]

I’m certainly not denying micro evolution and some predictability in those situations, but even with that and the millions upon millions of miracles in God’s creation are you saying there is no chance that even several finds aren’t just some sort of anomaly in both predictability and life form? And, are you sure there wasn’t some reverse predicting going on after the finds?

No, the ToE is incredibly robust and well-supported.

Invoking magic (miracles, god(s)) in a science debate is an auto-loss.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, the ToE is incredibly robust and well-supported.

Invoking magic (miracles, god(s)) in a science debate is an auto-loss.

Whether you like it or not, this is a Creation & Evolution sub-forum.

 

[VirOptimus]

Whether you like it or not, this is a Creation & Evolution sub-forum.

And...?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution still lacks a concrete mechanism./quote]

I just explained the concrete mechanism (in a nutshell) in the post you are replying to.

Good grief.......

Your post shows such. Ideology of what happens rather than scientific facts of a repeatable working mechanism.

Every single aspect of the mechanism can be observed and tested.

And that is what the fossil record shows.

The fossil record shows a progression of increased diversity over time. The fossil record fits the evolutionary narrative like a glove.

Evolution lacks facts and proposes that mutation is the base of creatures advancing in complexity through ecosystem adjustemts.

Which can be observed in the lab, in the wild, in breeding programs and agriculture.

That is storybook conjecture.

No it's observable reality.

Sci-fi. Sound good but is not supported by evidence.

Supported by all the evidence and contradicted by none.

 

[DogmaHunter]

An alternate model is a weak path to proving yours.

Says the guy who's entire case for creationism is literally trying to take poke holes in evolution theory.............................

Why are you unable to present evolution like it has happened?

That's actually hilarious, consider who it is you are directing that question to.
You have no idea, do you?

 

[Jimmy D]

Here is, and I won't call it proof because nothing in science is regarded as proof when it's rather a plausible explanation, but here is why I would say evolution is true. And I would be curious to hear of anyone's alternative explanations. @inquiring mind this is for you as well.

He's just trolling mate.

This has been explained to him at length, countless times.

 

[Job 33:6]

I’m certainly not denying micro evolution and some predictability in those situations, but even with that and the millions upon millions of miracles in God’s creation are you saying there is no chance that even several finds aren’t just some sort of anomaly in both predictability and life form? And, are you sure there wasn’t some reverse predicting going on after the finds?

This is a transition between fish and tatrapods. This is not micro evolution by anyone's definition. It's from fish without legs to animals that have legs and walk on land and breathe air.

The thing is, it isn't anomolous because it was predicted and expected.

And no it's not reverse predicting. I do the same thing all the time. There are no smoke screens or any tricks up our sleeves. It just is what it is .

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is a transition between fish and tatrapods. This is not micro evolution by anyone's definition. It's from fish without legs to animals that have legs and walk on land and breathe air.

The thing is, it isn't anomolous because it was predicted and expected.

And no it's not reverse predicting. I do the same thing all the time. There are no smoke screens or any tricks up our sleeves. It just is what it is .

I'm afraid that they just don't care.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That’s what they said about the Coelacanth too, that it was the transitional between, until they were found alive and the DNA tested...

So their track record does not support their new claimed transitional any more than Coelacanth did.....

 

[Jimmy D]

That’s what they said about the Coelacanth too, that it was the transitional between, until they were found alive and the DNA tested...

So their track record does not support their new claimed transitional any more than Coelacanth did.....

Yeah sure, learning is great!

What happened when they were "DNA tested" I wonder, your statement is intriguing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787270/

 

[Job 33:6]

That’s what they said about the Coelacanth too, that it was the transitional between, until they were found alive and the DNA tested...

So their track record does not support their new claimed transitional any more than Coelacanth did.....

The ceolacanth that is alive today, is not the same species as that which lived in the past. So actually you are incorrect in suggesting that ceolacanth of the past have been found today and DNA tested.

But really, this is nothing more than you changing the subject because you don't have a real response for the predictions made regarding half tetrapod half fish fossils in remote places of Canada.

Also, I will add that a variant species of ceolacanth existing today, does not contradict evolution or it's predictions. Nor is it a contradiction, finding tetrapods (like those similar to devonian tetrapods) today either. I can find plenty of modern day variant tetrapods that are similar to fossil species like acanthastega.

What would contradict the theory is if these tetrapods were found in the fossil record before fish, as they are predicted to have evolved from fish and therefore must have fish before them. Which they do, hence the whole reason tiktaaliks location could be predicted, because rocks of a middle age we're looked at between early age fish dominated rock and late age tetrapod dominated rock.

@inquiring mind feel free to read the above response so you are aware.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah sure, learning is great!

What happened when they were "DNA tested" I wonder, your statement is intriguing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787270/

All I saw were probability, maybe, supposed.... a lot of assumptions....

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...e-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The ceolacanth that is alive today, is not the same species as that which lived in the past. So actually you are incorrect in suggesting that ceolacanth of the past have been found today and DNA tested.

But really, this is nothing more than you changing the subject because you don't have a real response for the predictions made regarding half tetrapod half fish fossils in remote places of Canada.

Excuse me. The paper tried to explain away their 400 million year rate of “slow evolution” because it didn’t exist.

Who you trying to fool with that PR?

It even told you they are morphological the same so they went into diversion mode.... attempting to justify their lack of evolution....

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me. The paper tried to explain away their 400 million year rate of “slow evolution” because it didn’t exist.

Who you trying to fool with that PR?

It even told you they are morphological the same so they went into diversion mode.... attempting to justify their lack of evolution....

Huh? Well your first two comments aren't a response. It's just you in denial. Regarding the 3rd statement, they are not calling the ceolacanths the same, morphologically. Where in the paper did you read that?

 

[Job 33:6]

And again, we still have avoidance of the discussion related to predictions of tiktaalik^.

You're just trying to redirect the conversation to ceolacanth. In which modern day species are genetically (and morphologically) different than the ceolacanth of the fossil record.

Your inability to differentiate between ceolacanth species of the devonian and those of today is just due to the fact that you don't really know anything about the fish and you're basing your understanding off of random laymem magazines and creation websites. Lol.

If you would like, I can show you research describing morphological differences between species of the past and species today.

 

[Job 33:6]

And again a second time, we have tetrapods today that have similarities to tetrapod species of the devonian. They aren't the same though, they're different species. And the existance of tetrapods today, doesn't contradict the theory of evolution. What would contradict the theory is if tetrapods were found before fish, as tetrapods are predicted to have evolved from fish.

But of course no tetrapods are found before lobe finned fish. So there is no contradiction. Same with reptiles. Reptiles evolved from amphibians. Birds evolved from reptiles and mammals evolved from reptiles. And we don't find this out of order, anywhere in genetics or in the fossil succession.



So this discussion about ceolacanth is really just smoke and mirrors and is more or less irrelevant.

@inquiring mind do you understand what I am saying here?

 

[inquiring mind]

All I saw were probability, maybe, supposed.... a lot of assumptions....

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...e-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/

Thank you for sharing this article justatruthseeker. I wish evolutionists would always distinguish between macro and micro evolution when they are speaking of the theory. I don’t think anyone here disagrees with some form of micro evolution or variations of kind happening (regardless of the time involved). But, if evolutionists fall through the floor with macro claims, they just deflect back to asserting micro changes as though they have made no connect-the-dots mistake... even referring to a Smithsonian article as a 'random laymen magazine.'

 

[pitabread]

I wish evolutionists would always distinguish between macro and micro evolution when they are speaking of the theory.

The problem is that creationists have their own private definition for those terms that isn't how biologists use the terms.

And especially since the generation-to-generation process of evolution doesn't change whether you're talking about a handful of generations or a million generations.