Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

GodsGrace101 said:

For instance....it is a proven fact that the earth rotates around the sun and the sun stays still.
This is what I mean by "proof".

Click to expand...

Barycenter... . Stuff's just wobblin' all over the place!

I know what you mean, but it's not a great example. Particularly in this instance, as there is AT LEAST as good evidence for evolution by natural selection as their is for heliocentrism. And, the characteristics of arguments for geocentrism (be they psuedo-scientific, theological or solipistic) share very similar traits to those used for supporting creationism.

GodsGrace101 said:

I don't understand why I have to provide evidence.
Could YOU post something from a scientific journal that states that skeletons of man from 100,000 years ago were human because of DNA testing? That would be nice to see.

Click to expand...

Certainly. Which species of human would you like to see the DNA testing for?

As to the first paragraph...I really don't know what you're talking about.

This is like asking me to prove that water is wet.

Click to expand...

You claimed that if there is nothing, nothing can come from it. I'd like to know why this is relevant. Even if it is true, you would need to first establish that there has ever been such a state. Otherwise, your point is entirely meaningless. For what it's worth, the only people who believe that something came from nothing are a certain subset of theists. But somehow it's ok if THEY believe that because...magic.

Scientists used to believe that the universe always existed....
NOW they don't believe this anymore...NOW they believe in the big bang.

I need to back this up???

Click to expand...

There are many theories about how the universe began, none of them are as simple as you state here. There are STILL scientists who hypothesize that the universe has always existed. Others, that the universe is a result of something else.

The Big Bang doesn't really describe the initiation of our universe, just what happened to it in the last 13+ billion years. But they don't really know where it comes from, and they'd tell you that.

And I really would like to see something from a reliable source stating that we were around 100,000 years ago,,,,before the last ice-age.

Click to expand...

Ok, here you go:

The earliest modern humans outside Africa

lifepsyop said:

Evolutionists have long claimed that the order of fossils in the rock layers directly supports Evolution, and that their theory even gives them the power to predict specifically where certain types of fossils will or will not be found.

So, evolutionists, this challenge begins with a thought experiment:

Imagine that scientists have thoroughly studied all living things, but nobody has ever gone digging for fossils. So, you know everything about human,mammal,bird,reptile,amphibian,etc. anatomy, but no fossils have been dug up yet.

Now, since you love to claim that Evolution "predicts" the order of the fossil record in the geologic column.... tell us where you expect to find different types of fossilized animal groups, and provide specific arguments for your predictions. Keep in mind our thought experiment: You know all about living animal anatomy, but have zero prior knowledge of fossil appearances in the rock record. Therefore, these should be true predictions of the fossil record, supported with well-reasoned arguments.

Here are just some examples of the types of questions you should be able to answer:


-When do the mammals evolve? Where do you specifically expect to find them in the geologic column?
-More specifically, when do hominids evolve? Is it possible that hominids were an early innovation within mammals, or could they have only appeared very recently?
-What about other sub-groups? Lions, tigers, horses, rabbits?
-Do birds evolve long before, at the same time, or long after mammals evolve? Why?
-How about turtles? Did they evolve very early on, or could they be a relatively recent evolutionary innovation only found in the upper rock layers?
-Can fossils be out of order? (i.e. can you find the remains of the grandchildren in rock layers older than the grandparents?)
-Is there any sensible fossil order at all? Or do major contemporaneous radiation events confuse it? (e.g. the selection pressures for mammals, dinosaurs, birds, etc. all manifest in relatively the same timeframe, causing their fossils to be mixed in with one another) Explain why you do or do not expect to find traces of such a pattern.

(Remember... Evolution theory supposedly "predicts" a specific order of fossils. So you should be able to argue for such a fossil order without prior knowledge of it.)

Click to expand...

The Son of God sent the Life Carriers to earth when it reached a stage where it could sustain life. They planted the primitive life forms in the shallow briny seas. Subsequently that life evolved to what we are today.

What we find in the geologic column are ancestors of what's living today.

Hominids are related to Lemurs. Will conscious man is a very recent development, 1,000,000 years.

GodsGrace101 said:

Apparently I'm not the only person on this good earth that believes as I do....

This is the bottom line:

YOU are the one claiming that evolution is a done-deal.

The onus is on YOU to show me, without doubt, that evolution is accepted as a scientific fact,,,and that this is how we came out of the soup to the state we're in now.

If you cannot do this....then the conversation is over.

Click to expand...

Re-reading your posts I can understand why you might feel that there is still some doubt over the accuracy of evolution.

I'm curious as to whether you spend any time reading non-creationist sources, because the only real opposition to the Theory of Evolution comes from groups or individuals with a commitment to safeguarding a particular religious standpoint. I'm referring to organisations like Answers in Genesis, Evolution News, etc - these sites can be very persuasive to the layman who is satisfied with taking their claims at face value, but often as not they are spreading misinformation to further their agenda (although I don't doubt that most of them are genuine in their beliefs).

On the other side of the coin do you not find it odd that there is no debate within the scientific community as to the fact of common descent? Obviously we don't fully understand every minute detail of the proccess, as it's a complicated business. This is where there is debate over minutiae, the importance of certain mechanisms etc, as the list of scientists you posted earlier demonstrated. Did you take the time to check up on the scientists who had signed up... Eugene Koonin, James Shapiro, etc, all respected biologists who fully accept common descent through evolution and have published many papers on the topic.

So while there may be some debate over the finer details of the Theory of Evolution there is none about the fact that evolution has occurred. The only resistance comes from a particular subset of religious groups with a vested interest in protecting a particular interpretation of the bible, odd isn't it?

None of this answers your question of course... "The onus is on YOU to show me, without doubt, that evolution is accepted as a scientific fact"

I won't just give you one little example that "proves" common descent, as will always be some excuse to dissmiss it. If I say that micro-evolution can be observed in the lab, the creationist objects that it doesn't "prove" monkey to man, a sequence of fossils that clearly show a morphological sequence can be dismissed as mere variation, nested heirarchies are dissmissed as "common design", we've heard them all.

So in response to your question I'd like to offer a couple of sources, one from a christian organization, that lay out the evidence as a whole, I just hope that you can approach them with an open mind...

What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Kenny'sID said:

Why don't you simply start explaining it to us, and I'll show you what I mean about it falling apart.

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in debating you over it. You forget that I'm not a new at this; I've had these debates/discussions for years and I've learned long ago that debates are a waste of time. Debates only serve to entrench pre-existing beliefs on both sides while doing nothing to change the reality of the situation.

The reality is that evolution is foundational to modern biology, accepted by biologists around the world, taught as part of biology studies and is an applied science (including patents having been issued based on it).

The only question is whether or not you want to learn why that is the case. But rather than learn you keep wanting to turn this into a conflict. I'm not interested in fighting you over this.

I'm simply going to keep pointing you to educational resources. Whether you wish to educate yourself is up to you.

Kenny'sID said:

That's a complete cop out and one that's been tried several times here. I think some people just came up with that junk because they couldn't prove it. If your backing for that is things change, just prove it for the moment, like the old days when science proved pretty much everything, that's what it was for.

Click to expand...

That's never been how science has worked.

Kenny'sID said:

Maybe someone else is educated enough to to answer to the OP?

Click to expand...

I had 'joined' the thread well into the discussion, so I only recently decided to look at the OP to address it - it is a scam, basically.
The dude seems to think that Theories are developed out of thin air, and only later is evidence/data gathered. That is the only explanation for his 'challenge'.

Or at the very least stop making baseless claims without even a tad of backing?

Click to expand...

None of my claims are baseless.

GodsGrace101 said:

Think of all the scientific progress in the last 100 years...and it's still a theory?

Click to expand...

Did I really just read that?

GodsGrace101 said:

Can YOU make connections?

Click to expand...

Yes, I did - Tour did not want the meeting recorded because then he would not be able to claim that Matzke had not provided to him what he wanted. That is, he would have to admit that he is not as informed as his religious acolytes think he is.

If man cannot create life with all the necessary elements that are required to create it....

HOW did it get created all by itself millions of years ago with no help from anyone or anything?

Speak of primordial soup...
We can't even do it with necessary ingredients!

Click to expand...

Yeah, so anyway - Tour's position is one of ignorance and religion.

GodsGrace101 said:

Just to let you know that our conversation is over.

First of all when you split up what I say you can make it sound like I've said ANYTHING you wish.

Click to expand...

Right, OK...

Second of all, you just want to argue...
I don't like to argue.

Click to expand...

No, you just like to think that you uninformed opinions are om equal footing with the opinions of people that understand the materiel.

GodsGrace101 said:

YOU back up what YOU believe with objective/independent and reliable evidence
OR
evolution is just YOUR opinion.

Click to expand...

The starter of this thread blew this evidence off because he can't understand the sciencey jargon, but it is a good summary of evidence from genetics that supports evolution:



I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

lifepsyop said:

It couldn't and that's the point.

Click to expand...

Then you literally have no point.

tas8831 said:

Did I really just read that?

Click to expand...

IKR.

sesquiterpene said:

There is no species in existence that is totally different from any other species in existence, which is one of the reasons why biologists think evolution is true. I'd suggest that you try to learn some biology, and some evolutionary theory as well. Wikipedia is one place to start.

Click to expand...

I don't plan to learn anything from the net...let alone science which requires years of study.

I did, however, listen to a very interesting interview this morning.

It seems to me that atheists and agnostics could, maybe, not accept the newer findings in the field of how life began since they cannot accept an intelligent being behind how we got here.

I've always believed that we are too complicated to have come about by chance,,,this is what this interview is about.

Kenny'sID said:

You're fixing to run into the "Science proves nothing" claim.

A debate always good for a laugh, as well as an obvious cop out to make it appear evolution cannot be proven but only because they can't.

Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't read all my posts.
So I won't reply to this ridiculous claim.

VirOptimus said:

We know you are wrong.

And, an opinionpiece? Really? Thats laughable.

Click to expand...

It's not laughable if it's telling the truth.

And you DO NOT know I'm wrong because YOU DO NOT KNOW what started LIFE.

As soon as you can, come back to this thread and prove to all of us how LIFE BEGAN.

Steve Petersen said:

An article about evolution from a cardiologist. What makes him an authority on evolution?

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/william-wassynger-123602

Click to expand...

What makes YOU an authority?
Here's an authority....

Gene2memE said:

Source failure.

It's not an article. It's not even an opinion piece from a relevant expert. That's a letter to the editor, by a cardiologist (from 1989...), responding to Biblical literalism getting kicked out of text books.

Why should anyone give any weight to Dr Wassyner's utterances? Particularly when it contains howlers such as these, that demonstrate a spectacular lack of understanding of the ToE:

Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated. Charles Darwin clearly delineated the differences between speciation and general evolution, and noted that the support for general evolution would have to come from the fossil record.​

Click to expand...

Everything stated by the writer is true.
Unless YOU can prove it's wrong...