Evolution's Brick Wall

[loveofourlord]

That isn't how it works... are you lying or don't YOU know better? 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.

it's more like, if the pilgrams came from europe, how come there are still europeans.

 

[USincognito]

It's an odd fish, one of many strange creatures with unusual features.

Indeed it is. In fact this one's particular features make it a perfect example of a transitional fossil between Sarcopterygiians (lobe-finned fish) and terrestrial tetrapods.

Where is the celebration, the spotlight on the 'game over' show, if all scientists think 'Tic Tac' is definite proof of macro evolution?

1. Why do some think that childish mockery is an effective means of discussion?
2. Science doesn't prove things.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
3. No single fossil or any other piece of evidence is "the one". Scientific theories are built on bodies of evidence, not a single example.
4. There have been many thousands of transitional fossils discovered over the last 200 years. Each of them received some fanfare at the time of their discovery, others were more muted. It depends on the lead author of the paper and whether they make the discovery more of a public event (with books and TV appearances). From human evolution take AL-288-1 also known as Lucy which is quite famous and has made her discoverer Don Johanson quite famous as well. On the other hand the I have no idea who discovered the even more complete but not quite as famous WT-15000 also known as Turkana Boy.
(edit - I thought it might be Richard Leakey and checking I see it was one of his team members and Leakey is one of the paper authors.)

You even had to produce a four year old article. If there were no doubts in the scientific world, this should have been the Super Bowl for evolutionists.

1. See number 4 above.
2. Tiktaalik was the fossil version of summer blockbuster. Neil Shubin wrote a Best Selling book after the find and in 2014 made a three part documentary for PBS. To act as if this discovery was not a big deal betrays an ignorance of how it was received.
3. We're making incredible fossil discoveries every year. One of most recent to finally be a blockbuster for the science literate was Little Foot who was unveiled to the public in 2017 after 20 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42250530

 

[USincognito]

Alternative (but overlapping) explanation: "kinds" are the classifications you learned as a two-year-old. Dog, cat, sheep, pig, bird, fish, bug, tree.

I made this up a few years ago.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, I don’t think all scientists are in agreement with this claim.

Wrong. I'm sure you can find a few crackpots left and right, but overall, the overwhelming majority accept this by consensus.

Many scientists are so eager to save face with regard to their going ‘all in’ for macro evolution that they will jump on anything to serve as a ‘dot’ in their ridiculous notion that man was a progression from fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals.

No scientists, nore science itself, is helped by "saving face".
What would be the motivation for staying ignorant and continuing on with things they supposedly know are wrong?

It makes no sense and it's basically the same as accusing them of a giant conspiracy, the scale of which is pretty much unprecedented in human history. And for what?

It makes zero sense.

This ridiculousness will be put to rest someday, and when it is we need to have a gigantic diploma burning.

Wow.

‘Tic Tac’ is yet another extinct species, not evidence of macro evolution in any form or fashion. Odd as it is, it’s just another fish that met its end. There are many odd fish. There are even fish that fly. Did they turn into birds?

Can someone produce an updated article on ‘Tic Tac,’ not twelve years old, that puts ‘Tic Tac’ in the spotlight as an undisputed transitional between kinds? I think an update was my first question to KomatiiteBIF way back in the thread and I never got an answer. I’m not interested in isolated rock formation finds and predictions, unless they contain or put together a succession of actual transitional finds showing partial changes in appendages, organs if they are so lucky, etc. If rock strata are that predictable, those shouldn’t be that hard to find.

Denial, denial, denial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Lord's word... and if that doesn't work for you, there's always common sense.

Which lord?


And common sense tells me to follow the evidence. And the evidence leads to evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's an odd fish, one of many strange creatures with unusual features. Where is the celebration, the spotlight on the 'game over' show, if all scientists think 'Tic Tac' is definite proof of macro evolution? You even had to produce a four year old article. If there were no doubts in the scientific world, this should have been the Super Bowl for evolutionists.

Titkaalik is just one of MANY successes in evolution theory.
To scientists, while it certainly is a cool fossil, it is not THE reference for evolution at all. There are MANY such pieces of solid evidence. In fact, there's more of such evidence then a single human could review in a complete lifetime.

The only reason it is presented here under a spotlight, is because this is a very easy to understand example of a transitional: a fish with limbs and other clear tetrapod features.

But make no mistake, if all fossils, including tiktaalik, would disappear later today, evolution theory would be just as solid as it ever has been tomorrow, thanks to the genetic record alone.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When this particular part of the discussion was started, 'Tic Tac' was presented as the 'end all' to the argument.

No, it wasn't.

It was presented as an easy to understand transitional fossil and a prime example of how evolution theory is capable of predicting both locality as well as feature sets of yet undiscovered transitional fossils.

But apparantly "easy to understand", still wasn't easy enough.

 

[Colter]

With all the "kinds" and the sheer size of some of those kinds, its a good thing death-do-to-the-fall was invented else it would be really crowded by now! Imagine driving and a T.Rex jumped out of the woods?

 

[tas8831]

You pretent what is transitional without the morphological details inbetween.

Explain why there must be "morphological details inbetween".

Tell us all what the "morphological details inbetween" between a mother of normal phenotype and her achondroplastic child are, for surely such obvious morphological distinctions MUST be separated by many intermediates, according to your Dunning-Kruger logic!

 

[sfs]

Where is the celebration, the spotlight on the 'game over' show, if all scientists think 'Tic Tac' is definite proof of macro evolution?

Wait -- are you under the impression that scientists are sitting around looking for "proof" of evolution? This illustrates one of the problems with your approach -- attacking something you know nothing about, criticizing scientists when you know nothing at all about either the science or the scientists. You seem to be living in a fantasy world in which biologists are still looking for evidence for evolution. We're not. We're studying the details of evolutionary history, we're studying the mechanisms of evolution, and we're using evolution to understand other aspects of biology. To the extent that most biologists think about creationists at all, it's to roll their eyes at them (one of the reasons, by the way, that many scientists think of Christians as idiots -- thanks a bunch for that).

We already have mountains of evidence for evolution. It's a real chore, though, simplifying the evidence for those without any background -- and completely pointless for those who don't want to understand the evidence.

You call yourself "inquiring mind", but have you noticed how little inquiring you're doing here? You haven't asked why biologists, including Christian biologists, accept evolution. You haven't asked what kinds of evidence for evolution is out there. I don't know your motivations, but I can see your actions, and one thing you most certainly are not doing is "inquiring".

 

[AV1611VET]

With all the "kinds" and the sheer size of some of those kinds, its a good thing death-do-to-the-fall was invented else it would be really crowded by now!

Either that, or procreation woud cease after the earth was replenished.

Imagine driving and a T.Rex jumped out of the woods?

Driving?

Had the Fall not occurred, we'd probably be riding them.

Haven't you ever watched The Flintstones?

 

[Speedwell]

It's an odd fish, one of many strange creatures with unusual features. Where is the celebration, the spotlight on the 'game over' show, if all scientists think 'Tic Tac' is definite proof of macro evolution? You even had to produce a four year old article. If there were no doubts in the scientific world, this should have been the Super Bowl for evolutionists.

It's not a contest--there's nothing to contest against. Science is just gradually increasing our understanding of our origins. Tiktaalik is just one more piece of that knowledge.

 

[Colter]

Either that, or procreation woud cease after the earth was replenished.Driving?

Had the Fall not occurred, we'd probably be riding them.

Haven't you ever watched The Flintstones?

AV, the Flintstones was a cartoon, but so was the creation story so I guess I can see the subliminal context.

 

[Ken Rank]

it's more like, if the pilgrams came from europe, how come there are still europeans.

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.

 

[inquiring mind]

Keep in mind with all this wittiness, these are the same people whose so-called superior intellect has led them to believing that ‘non-humans’ just wanted to talk so bad (when they didn’t even know what it was and nothing else in creation served as an example) that they were capable of imagining it and kept trying for a million years or so until ‘presto’ one day their lips and tongue had receded, the throat had changed, and they spoke and became ‘human’ through the evolutionary process. I guess the reasoning is that if dinosaurs turned into birds it wasn’t that hard to think we descended from parrots (although they had nothing to mimic until humans were created). Science is a wonderful thing... until it starts ignoring common sense.

 

[inquiring mind]

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.

 

[Speedwell]

Keep in mind with all this wittiness, these are the same people whose so-called superior intellect has led them to believing that ‘non-humans’ just wanted to talk so bad (when they didn’t even know what it was and nothing else in creation served as an example) that they were capable of imagining it and kept trying for a million years or so until ‘presto’ one day their lips and tongue had receded, the throat had changed, and they spoke and became ‘human’ through the evolutionary process. I guess the reasoning is that if dinosaurs turned into birds it wasn’t that hard to think we descended from parrots (although they had nothing to mimic until humans were created). Science is a wonderful thing... until it starts ignoring common sense.

You have such lurid and improbable ideas about evolution it's no wonder you don't like it.

 

[tas8831]

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.

LOL!

You refuted your own silliness and don't seem to understand that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Keep in mind with all this wittiness, these are the same people whose so-called superior intellect has led them to believing that ‘non-humans’ just wanted to talk so bad (when they didn’t even know what it was and nothing else in creation served as an example) that they were capable of imagining it and kept trying for a million years or so until ‘presto’ one day their lips and tongue had receded, the throat had changed, and they spoke and became ‘human’ through the evolutionary process. I guess the reasoning is that if dinosaurs turned into birds it wasn’t that hard to think we descended from parrots (although they had nothing to mimic until humans were created). Science is a wonderful thing... until it starts ignoring common sense.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

"Ape" is not a species, It is a family of eight species, including humans. The theory of evolution does not hold that humans evolved from any presently existing species.