Fossil Record Shows Evolution as an Errant Fabricated Mess

[Subduction Zone]

So you saying that you can't have an old earth without also accepting evolution?

No, I am saying that if you do not accept evolution you are denying reality. All creationist beliefs, unless one believes in a God that purposefully lies and distorts, is what we observe. If one believes in a Norse god like Loki then perhaps creationism would be justified. But I cannot see believing in Christianity and believing in creationism. In light of what we know today both OEC and YEC require a dishonest God. When I was a Christian I did not think that God could lie so I accepted evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I am saying that if you do not accept evolution you are denying reality.

The more I peruse anatomy studies the more I'm convinced of creation (as if I needed more convincing). There may be 'evidence' of evolution, but I don't see it when I study anatomy. What I see is incredible, elegant design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The more I peruse anatomy studies the more I'm convinced of creation (as if I needed more convincing). There may be 'evidence' of evolution, but I don't see it when I study anatomy. What I see is incredible, elegant design.

Then there appears to be something seriously wrong with your studies. If you studied anatomy you would understand that nature is far from perfect, it does not have "elegant design" it works on "good enough". I am serious that you have to have at least one eye closed all the time when you study.

What we see are continued changes on systems already in place. Instead of design from the start again for every life form. The recurrent laryngeal never is an excellent example of that. It is a nerve that carries rather important information so it cannot simply be switched for another nerve. So we are stuck with it and the massive detour it takes. In a giraffe that amounts to a fifteen foot detour IIRC. It has picked up some other function, as systems will do as evolution occurs, but it is its main job that could be done so much easier with a direct line.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then there appears to be something seriously wrong with your studies. If you studied anatomy you would understand that nature is far from perfect, it does not have "elegant design" it works on "good enough". I am serious that you have to have at least one eye closed all the time when you study.

What we see are continued changes on systems already in place. Instead of design from the start again for every life form. The recurrent laryngeal never is an excellent example of that. It is a nerve that carries rather important information so it cannot simply be switched for another nerve. So we are stuck with it and the massive detour it takes. In a giraffe that amounts to a fifteen foot detour IIRC. It has picked up some other function, as systems will do as evolution occurs, but it is its main job that could be done so much easier with a direct line.

Recall that we are only made to last for an average of 70-80 years. God built in the 'weaknesses' that would be brought into play by our lifestyle choices and ensure that we croak in a timely manner. Seems to be working.

My thought is that if the nerve takes what seems an unnecessarily long route there is another function involved, by design from the start. That's why my speculation that there might be a connection between the gut/viscera and the larynx as that's where those 'secondary' nerve fiber connections are.

I can't picture the 'magic' of evolution producing the incredibly intricate processes that govern our bodies and minds. And reading about the 'process' has done nothing to convince me otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Recall that we are only made to last for an average of 70-80 years. God built in the 'weaknesses' that would be brought into play by our lifestyle choices and ensure that we croak in a timely manner. Seems to be working.

My thought is that if the nerve takes what seems an unnecessarily long route there is another function involved, by design from the start. That's why my speculation that there might be a connection between the gut/viscera and the larynx as that's where those 'secondary' nerve fiber connections are.

I can't picture the 'magic' of evolution producing the incredibly intricate processes that govern our bodies and minds. And reading about the 'process' has done nothing to convince me otherwise.

You have your belief upon a logical fallacy. An argument from incredulity is wrong far too often. You should try to learn the scientific method so that you can test your ideas properly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You have your belief upon a logical fallacy. An argument from incredulity is wrong far too often. You should try to learn the scientific method so that you can test your ideas properly.

Has science demonstrated evolution in the lab? That would be pretty convincing if they did.

 

[Brightmoon]

Has science demonstrated evolution in the lab? That would be pretty convincing if they did.

yes, long ago

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has science demonstrated evolution in the lab? That would be pretty convincing if they did.

See above post.

And several times. The problem is that most creationists do not understand what evolution is in the first place. If they think that evolution involves a "change of kinds" then they have no clue.

 

[Kylie]

Let's stick to what the fossil record actually presents verses what evolutionists claim.

This is a thread about such.

Okay.

Do you agree that modern whales have features that are absent in the very early whales? And do you agree that the fossils we have from times between the earliest and most recent whales show the development of the features that modern whales have? With the features becoming more like those that are found in modern whales as the fossils become more recent?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

See above post.

And several times. The problem is that most creationists do not understand what evolution is in the first place. If they think that evolution involves a "change of kinds" then they have no clue.

In this example did the researches consider that the bacteria simply didn't like citrate, but were forced to eat it due to a lack of glucose? Or maybe a few tried it and liked it. And what anatomical changes happened to the bacteria as a result.

When I was a child I wouldn't eat green olives, but later developed a liking for them. Perhaps if given no other choice the bacteria would have been quite content eating citrate.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this example did the researches consider that the bacteria simply didn't like citrate, but were forced to eat it due to a lack of glucose? Or maybe a few tried it and liked it. And what anatomical changes happened to the bacteria as a result.

When I was a child I wouldn't eat green olives, but later developed a liking for them. Perhaps if given no other choice the bacteria would have been quite content eating citrate.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Genetic changes occurred, by definition evolution.

Creationists often want to see something in the lab that would refute the theory of evolution if observed.

You did not undergo genetic changes in growing up. That is not evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Genetic changes occurred, by definition evolution.

Can the speed of evolutionary change be calculated using those laboratory events? Have changes necessary for our evolution been observed in the lab? It seems unlikely that enough of such changes could have happened given the time needed. It also seems unlikely that many or even several coordinated changes could take place that would allow evolution in such a short time frame.

There's a big difference between 31,500 generations of bacteria and 31,500 generations of a developed organism such as man for a single, less than profound, change to occur.

Let's do the math.

Early man reaches breeding age at 20 years X 31,500 generations for a tiny digestive change (now he can eat oranges) = a small change every 630,000 years. Given the billions of changes needed to produce modern man there just isn't enough time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can the speed of evolutionary change be calculated using those laboratory events? Have changes necessary for our evolution been observed in the lab? It seems unlikely that enough of such changes could have happened given the time needed. It also seems unlikely that many or even several coordinated changes could take place that would allow evolution in such a short time frame.

There's a big difference between 31,500 generations of bacteria and 31,500 generations of a developed organism such as man for a single, less than profound, change to occur.

Let's do the math.

Early man reaches breeding age at 20 years X 31,500 generations for a tiny digestive change (now he can eat oranges) = a small change every 630,000 years. Give the billions of changes needed to produce modern man there just isn't enough time.

Yes, they have done the math. There is more than enough time. Your example is so general as to be worthless. A better test would be to see how many difference there are between man and chimps and to look at how many years there have been since our split. That is more specific. It is a real world event that can be tested. Guess what happens when one does so?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, they have done the math. There is more than enough time. Your example is so general as to be worthless. A better test would be to see how many difference there are between man and chimps and to look at how many years there have been since our split. That is more specific. It is a real world event that can be tested. Guess what happens when one does so?

Let's zero in on that.
What are the differences, and how long for each difference to occur? How many differences occurred at the same time in the 'population'? Is there fossil evidence of evolutionary changes gone wrong?

In that regard, why no fossil evidence of unsuccessful changes in those primates? We only see straight line improvements, no mistakes. Looks like planning, design, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's zero in on that.
What are the differences, and how long for each difference to occur? How many differences occurred at the same time in the 'population'? Is there fossil evidence of evolutionary changes gone wrong?

In that regard, why no fossil evidence of unsuccessful changes in those primates? We only see straight line improvements, no mistakes. Looks like planning, design, etc.

Sorry, that is a bit too much to ask. Asking unreasonable questions does not prove anything except that one is being unreasonable. It indicates that one does not want to face the truth.

And what do you mean by "unsuccessful changes"? That question makes no sense as asked. It leads me to think that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, that is a bit too much to ask. Asking unreasonable questions does not prove anything except that one is being unreasonable. It indicates that one does not want to face the truth.

And what do you mean by "unsuccessful changes"? That question makes no sense as asked. It leads me to think that you do not know what you are talking about.

So all evolutionary changes are beneficial?

 

[Speedwell]

So all evolutionary changes are beneficial?

With each new generation of a population, a range of variants are presented to the environment for selection. When the environment is stable, the variants out at the extremes of this distribution will be less successful in reproducing than those in the middle of the range. On the other hand, if the environment (and hence the selection criteria) is changing, then individuals at one or the other of the extremes are more likely to be successful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So all evolutionary changes are beneficial?

I see that you do not understand natural selection. All changes are of course not beneficial. But negative changes tend not to be passed on. Also if an individual died to a bad mutation the difference caused by that one mutation is all but guaranteed to be so small that it will not be noticeable.


And there are many evolutionary changes that are preserved that did not work out. That occurs when a population goes extinct. Over 99% of the fossil record is of lines that were thought to have gone extinct. Even in our recent record there are failed lines such as the Denisovans:

Denisovan - Wikipedia

And of course the Neanderthals.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

With each new generation of a population, a range of variants are presented to the environment for selection. When the environment is stable, the variants out at the extremes of this distribution will be less successful in reproducing than those in the middle of the range. On the other hand, if the environment (and hence the selection criteria) is changing, then individuals at one or the other of the extremes are more likely to be successful.

What about changes that have nothing to do with the ability to reproduce? Why is every successful change linked to the ability to reproduce?

 

[Speedwell]

What about changes that have nothing to do with the ability to reproduce? Why is every successful change linked to the ability to reproduce?

Because only those individuals who are successful enough in their environment to reproduce will be able to pass their particular variations on to the next generation.