Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

For starters, we wouldn't be able to predict where to find them...

exactly.

If it was all just instantaneous creation, then there is no reason for why mammals are found after reptiles, or birds after reptiles, or reptiles after amphibians or tetrapods after fish-like tetrapods.

We would have no idea where to look for transitional fossils if the theory of evolution didnt exist.

 

[Speedwell]

If you see only one complete specimen, what is to keep that from being just another of God's miraculous creations that eventually went extinct?

Which just happens to confirm the evolutionary model? Nothing. There is nothing at all to rule out God laying down a series of fossils which appear to confirm the evolutionary model. But scientists are going to continue to search for fossils to see how good a job He did of it.

 

[inquiring mind]

"but what has been found provides provisional confirmation for the evolutionary model, and that is as good as science gets."

He is saying that fossils that have been found, confirm the evolutionary model. Ie fish, then tetrapod like fish, then fish like tetrapods, then tetrapods, in that order, support the theory.

Confirm 'for the evolutionary model' is key here... I wasn't saying I agree.

 

[inquiring mind]

And that's all we have been trying to tell you for weeks.

The ' fitting your model' and 'as good as science gets' is what really jumped out at me.

 

[Job 33:6]

Confirm 'for the evolutionary model' is key here... I wasn't saying I agree.

Well that's what the theory of evolution is. It's a theory in which, the world makes sense, indeed reality makes sense, when understood through it. It is something used to make sense of existance.

On the flip side, let's say instantaneous creation had a theory. That theory, or in this case, the instantaneous creation hypothesis, might lead us to believe that finding mammal fossils or bird fossils or flowering plants fossils or reptile fossils, might be equally likely to be found in the mid devonian, as half fish half tetrapods.

But of course this isn't true as reptiles, birds, mammals and flowering plants are nowhere to be found at this period of time.

 

[Speedwell]

The ' fitting your model' and 'as good as science gets' is what really jumped out at me.

Right. And if something is discovered which doesn't fit the model, then the model has to be changed or abandoned. That's how science works.

 

[inquiring mind]

Well that's what the theory of evolution is. It's a theory in which, the world makes sense, indeed reality makes sense, when understood through it. It is something used to make sense of existance.

On the flip side, let's say instantaneous creation had a theory. That theory, or in this case, the instantaneous creation hypothesis, might lead us to believe that finding mammal fossils or bird fossils or flowering plants fossils or reptile fossils, might be equally likely to be found in the mid devonian, as half fish half tetrapods.

But of course this isn't true as reptiles, birds, mammals and flowering plants are nowhere to be found at this period of time.

You have not heard one word from me denouncing or making fun of micro evolution (in some form); it is only macro evolution (the complete change from one kind to another) that has not, and in my opinion never will, be confirmed. With all the fruitless effort to convincingly show it, how can you can you continue to be so faithful to that concept?

 

[Speedwell]

You have not heard one word from me denouncing or making fun of micro evolution (in some form); it is only macro evolution (the complete change from one kind to another) that has not, and in my opinion never will, be confirmed. With all the fruitless effort to convincingly show it, how can you can you continue to be so faithful to that concept?

We are "faithful" to that concept only so long as the evidence is consistent with it. The Tiktaalik find is consistent with it--along with an immense body of other evidence. Have you any evidence which is not consistent with it? Because that is what it would take to undermine our "faith."

 

[Job 33:6]

You have not heard one word from me denouncing or making fun of micro evolution (in some form); it is only macro evolution (the complete change from one kind to another) that has not, and in my opinion never will, be confirmed. With all the fruitless effort to convincingly show it, how can you can you continue to be so faithful to that concept?

The transition spans from fish which live in water to tetrapods which walk on land and beyond.

So this is a discussion about macro evolution, it is not a discussion about micro evolution.

You ask how someone could be faithful to the concept, well, because half fish-half tetrapods exist in strata between older strata of fish and younger strata of tetrapods. And half reptile-half mammal species exist in strata between reptile dominated strata and mammal dominated strata. And this is the case, indeed, between all major groups of life. We even have turtles with half a shell between shell-less turtles and turtles with full shells. And of course, faithful is not an accurate word. Knowledgeable is a better choice of word for this scenario.

Tiktaalik is just a simplified example to help you understand.

The reason people support evolution, is because it is supported by several lines of evidence, and this is just one of those lines of evidence, commonly known as the fossil succession.

 

[inquiring mind]

So this is a discussion about macro evolution, it is not a discussion about micro evolution.

And why I have been questioning it for weeks.

 

[Speedwell]

And why I have been questioning it for weeks.

Well, I hope your questions have been answered--with respect to scientific epistemology, at least.

Now, where is the evidence which does not fit with the evolutionary model? The theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, is only held provisionally pending new evidence. Bring it on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@ DogmaHunter
@Jimmy D
Trying to be reasonable with you has only led to more of the old 'tired' comebacks of denial and ignorance, no real rebuttals...

You haven't given us anything to refute....
All this time, it's been denial after denial after denial of the stuff that's been explained to you.

What do you want me to tell you?
We've explained at length what the Tiktaalik find represents, what the implications are of having find that fossil by prediction based on evolution theory and evolutionary history.

We've also pointed out to you that it really isn't limited to just Tiktaalik.. that example has been chosen only because it is the easiest to understand, since it represents one of the most impactfull transitions (from sea to land). Really, just about every transitional is found in this manner...

Or did you think that paleontologists just choose an arbitrary spot and start digging, hoping to find something - without them actually looking for specific things?

I'll just start by saying I think you are very confused, to the point you can't interpret anything that doesn't fit your pre-programmed illusions.

My irony meter just exploded.........................

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It is a fact you have zero fossils unearthed that show between two lifeforms the detailed morphological changes that show one changing into the other. . . . .

It is a fact that, considering how many animals have lived, we are not going to have a fossil of every animal that lived, which is the only way to provide what you are asking. The fossil record is consistent with evolution occurring and fossilization only happening to some of the animals that once lived.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Indeed, and were any of them transitioning to or from?

For crying out loud........................

Tiktaalik IS the transitional that ties the fish "a little before" to the tetrapods "a litle after".

It's like you're not even trying.

And found a strange fish (a dot),

A fish, with tetrapod features. Just like the prediction said it would be!

and promoted it as the answer to macro evolution.

Since it was predicted based on the idea of macro evolution, this fossil didn't get "promoted" to anything. Instead, it was a confirmation of theory that was used to make the prediction.

It's amazing how this whole thing keeps escaping you. I don't get it. At all.

... and don't forget, sold a lot of books too.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Finally, someone who makes sense.

You say he makes sense, but he's essentially agreeing with us and telling you that you don't get it................

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You have not heard one word from me denouncing or making fun of micro evolution (in some form); it is only macro evolution (the complete change from one kind to another) that has not, and in my opinion never will, be confirmed. With all the fruitless effort to convincingly show it, how can you can you continue to be so faithful to that concept?

And until you have a verifiable, consistent definition of the word "kind" in this context you have no way to distinguish microevolution from macro evolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

Now, where is the evidence which does not fit with the evolutionary model?

In the 'other than faith sense' and 'common sense,' the 'lack of game-over, convincing evidence' for a macro evolutionary model is the best evidence against it... don't you think?

 

[inquiring mind]

My irony meter just exploded.........................

Mine did sometime last week.

 

[inquiring mind]

You say he makes sense, but he's essentially agreeing with us and telling you that you don't get it................

I knew what he meant, even if you didn't. That's why I followed up with post #1621.

 

[Speedwell]

In the 'other than faith sense' and 'common sense,' the 'lack of game-over, convincing evidence' for a macro evolutionary model is the best evidence against it... don't you think?

Science doesn't do "game-over, convincing evidence." Your sports metaphors are entirely inappropriate. Science only does, "This is the best explanation we can come up with based on the evidence we have so far."