Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

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."

Exactly!

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly!

So if you want another explanation, you will have to come up with new evidence. Because all of the evidence science has found so far is consistent with macro-evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

What is to keep anything from supernatural intervention?
What is to keep reality and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, from being just another of "God's miraculous creations" just 5 minutes ago?

See where I'm going with this?
When you allow for undemonstrable, unfalsifiable things to occur that can by definition never be disproven or supported, then you could literally attribute anything to that. But what's the use? It's entirely meaningless.

You say "god's creation", but you can replace that with a near infinite amount of unfalsifiable things, only really limited by your own imagination, and the merrit of the claim would remain completely unchanged.


Alternatively, you could just go with what the evidence actually shows......


And psssst: if Tiktaalik was "just another" of god's "independent" creations, then paleontologist wouldn't have been able to accuratly predict its location as well as its feature set before actually knowing about this species..........

Again, it seems like flies completely over your head that it literally is the evolutionary model that made this prediction possible. Without that model, paleontologists wouldn't have had the SLIGHTEST idea of where to look for it - let alone predict what features it would have!

Now, if after ten years of 'gold rush' style digging they produced 'a little before' and 'a little after' complete transitionals, well...

Tiktaalik provides exactly what you ask for: a transitional between fish and tetrapods.
That was a "gap" in the fossil record that was filled by Tiktaalik.
Now here you are, complaining about 2 more gaps: between fish and tiktaalik and between tiktaalik and tetrapods.

I'm positive that if you are given example X of a transitional between fish and Tiktaalik, you'll only be complaining about 2 new additional gaps: between fish and X and between X and Tiktaalik.

And round and round the merry goes.


Meanwhile, you still haven't properly addressed the Tiktaalik find by prediction and the underlying reasoning that allowed for that prediction.

 

[inquiring mind]

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.



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



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.



What does that have to do with anything?

Or it is just 'one' strange and unusual fish during that period that became extinct... what can't you get?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 only thing "fruitless" here, seems to be the effort that goes into trying to explain to you that that is exactly what finds like Tiktaalik, by prediction, accomplish........... The confirmation of macro evolution.

Not that we actually need such fossils for that, since the genetic record pretty much makes it a genetic fact that species share ancestors - but whatever.

 

[inquiring mind]

And psssst: if Tiktaalik was "just another" of god's "independent" creations, then paleontologist wouldn't have been able to accuratly predict its location as well as its feature set before actually knowing about this species..........

Did I not say 'one' strange and unusual, but...?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And why I have been questioning it for weeks.

While ignoring all the answers and clarifications, I'm sorry to say.

I really don't mean to bully you on this point, but I don't know what else to tell you.
You really are completely stubborn to the things we are telling you.

How does the fossil succession, as so elegantly explained by @KomatiiteBIF , NOT support macro evolution???

Again, according to evolution, there's a period dominated by fish followed by a period dominated by tetrapods. In between those 2 periods, by prediction, we find fish/tetrapod hybrids like Tiktaalik. What else do you expect? How can you say that this is not consistent with evolution theory?

Keep in mind that Tiktaalik is just ONE example. Every single fossil ever found, a lot of which were also found by prediction, fits the fossil succession like @KomatiiteBIF explained and like (macro) evolution requires to exist. No exceptions.

I don't know what else you need or expect.
Nore do I understand what your objection is, aside from "I don't believe it because I already believe something else".

 

[inquiring mind]

The only thing "fruitless" here, seems to be the effort that goes into trying to explain to you that that is exactly what finds like Tiktaalik, by prediction, accomplish........... The confirmation of macro evolution.

Not that we actually need such fossils for that, since the genetic record pretty much makes it a genetic fact that species share ancestors - but whatever.

Great, now we're back to genetics. Explain how an animal, with no example, imagined speech and developed it, and where did our Fox P2 gene come from anyway?

 

[Speedwell]

Or it is just 'one' strange and unusual fish during that period that became extinct... what can't you get?

And are you going to advance that explanation for all other transitional forms? OK, go for it. Your Nobel Prize awaits.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or it is just 'one' strange and unusual fish during that period that became extinct... what can't you get?

And it just happens to show up in exactly the right strata, with exactly the right features as predicted by the theory with which it is perfectly consistent, while the species was unknown before the find (yet after the prediction)?

And that is then also further the case with every other fossil from any time period in any strate with any feature set?

So Paleontologists "lucked out" thousands of times in a row? While NEVER finding anything fossils that breaks the succession of species as laid out in evolution theory?

This sounds reasonable to you?
Really?

 

[inquiring mind]

And are you going to advance that explanation for all other transitional forms? OK, go for it. Your Nobel Prize awaits.

I may get one for running this gauntlet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Did I not say 'one' strange and unusual, but...?

It's not "one".
We have given you ONE example.

The same applies to every single fossil ever unearthed. Thousands upon thousands. All in exactly the right strata with exactly the right anatomical features as required by evolution.

 

[DavidFirth]

The only thing "fruitless" here, seems to be the effort that goes into trying to explain to you that that is exactly what finds like Tiktaalik, by prediction, accomplish........... The confirmation of macro evolution.

Not that we actually need such fossils for that, since the genetic record pretty much makes it a genetic fact that species share ancestors - but whatever.

That is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.

Macroevolution hasn't been proven, far from it. It's simply not possible.

 

[inquiring mind]

So Paleontologists "lucked out" thousands of times in a row?

But, we're only talking 'once' here. Keep focused now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Great, now we're back to genetics.

I said "- but whatever", since the topic is fossils.

Explain how an animal, with no example, imagined speech and developed it, and where did our Fox P2 gene come from anyway?

Create a new thread.

 

[DavidFirth]

I said "- but whatever", since the topic is fossils.



Create a new thread.

Translation: I have no idea.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.

Macroevolution hasn't been proven, far from it. It's simply not possible.

1. no scientific theory is ever considered "proven". only supported.

2. according to evolution, period A is dominated by fish. period B is dominated by tetrapods. Evolution predicts: near the end of period A and near the beginning of period B, we should find fossils of species that look like fish/tetrapod hybrids. Paleontologists then look for a suitable spot with rocks from that specific period and start digging. What do they find? A fish/tetrapod hybrid. A previously unknown species.

How that isn't supportive of (macro)evolution, I have no idea.

Also note it is just one example. The entire fossil record exhibits exactly the fossil succession predicted by evolution. All fossils are found the correct strata with the correct anatomical features that they would need to be/have if evolution is accurate.

Not a single exception.
You don't find mammals in pre-cambrian rock. Ever.

That, together with the many other independent lines of evidence(*) which all converge on the exact same answer, makes evolution theory (micro and macro) the most solid theory in all of science.


(*) I hope you are aware that evolution is supported by many independent lines of evidence, and that fossils are just one small part of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Translation: I have no idea.

Bzzzzt.

Translation: don't derail the discussion. Create a new thread if you wish to discuss another topic.

 

[inquiring mind]

Bzzzzt.

Translation: don't derail the discussion. Create a new thread if you wish to discuss another topic.

Well, you were the one that switched from fossils to genetics.

 

[Speedwell]

I may get one for running this gauntlet.

What "gauntlet?" We're just trying to explain to you how science works.