Gaps in the fossil record debunks evolution

[Jamin4422]

Now convince me you understand this. ^^^

Actually you people need to convince US that you understand. The guy who wrote this has a Phd, so he knows what he is talking about. It is getting to be more and more that you guys do not even take evolution serious anymore, but turn it into a big joke.

Research fields

Plant physiology. Environmental adaptation of tropical / subtropical fruit species such as mango, lychee and custard apple (Annona spp.); floral biology, floral induction; breeding; environmental physiology (especially water requirements, effects of water deficits), plant taxonomy (especially at the sub-species level), and mineral nutrition. Dr Batten’s research in floral induction of lychee and mango has resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought on this (see Batten and McConchie, 1995), which was a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops.

 

[The Engineer]

Of course they are. And everything alive today will some day be a transitional fossil. And the prehistoric rabbit fossil that is the same as a modern rabbit is still transitioning. Everything everywhere is a transitional creature unless it went extinct. Woot!

I don't think I have to address this, as you ignored most of my post.

Actually you people need to convince US that you understand.

Actually, no. None of us is interested in refuting a copypasta.

The guy who wrote this has a Phd, so he knows what he is talking about.

Argument from authority. Nice!

It is getting to be more and more that you guys do not even take evolution serious anymore, but turn it into a big joke.

Actually, we don't. Creationists try to turn evolution into a joke, but they consistently fail.

You want to know what's a joke? Creationism. And you're the punchline.

Research fields

Plant physiology. Environmental adaptation of tropical / subtropical fruit species such as mango, lychee and custard apple (Annona spp.); floral biology, floral induction; breeding; environmental physiology (especially water requirements, effects of water deficits), plant taxonomy (especially at the sub-species level), and mineral nutrition. Dr Batten’s research in floral induction of lychee and mango has resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought on this (see Batten and McConchie, 1995), which was a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

From the references quoted in the OP I love these statements (emphasis mine):

"Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." But not every one? Implication is that some series have no gaps

"most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record" But not all paleontologists? So some didn't have gaps?

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." So there are examples of smooth, gradual evolution?

Why would you want to post contradictory references?

 

[rush1169]

Creature A evolved into creature B. What exactly are those two creatures?

 

[The Engineer]

Creature A evolved into creature B. What exactly are those two creatures?

Still creatures, I guess? Predecessor and successor, if you're talking about their relation to each other? What's the point of your question?

 

[rush1169]

Still creatures, I guess? Predecessor and successor, if you're talking about their relation to each other? What's the point of your question?

In an earlier post you referred to two creatures (A) and (B). I was just looking for an example of what those two creatures were. For example, maybe creature B is an armadillo so what was creature A (what was it before it became an armadillo)?

 

[The Engineer]

In an earlier post you referred to two creatures (A) and (B). I was just looking for an example of what those two creatures were. For example, maybe creature B is an armadillo so what was creature A (what was it before it became an armadillo)?

You don't know what a hypothetical scenario is, do you? I didn't have a specific creature in mind, I was merely trying to tell you what a transitional creature is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since cyanobacteria-to-man evolution cannot be daisy-chained, then I'm not interested in cyanobacteria-to-man evolution.

(But to be honest, even if it could, I still wouldn't be interested.)

 

[The Engineer]

Since cyanobacteria-to-man evolution cannot be daisy-chained, then I'm not interested in cyanobacteria-to-man evolution.

That's cool.

(But to be honest, even if it could, I still wouldn't be interested.)

Is it just me, or does your post lack any relevance whatsoever?

 

[rush1169]

You don't know what a hypothetical scenario is, do you? I didn't have a specific creature in mind, I was merely trying to tell you what a transitional creature is.

Rather than a made-up scenerio using generic creatures, I am asking for a specific scenerio using real creatures. Since I brought up the armadillo, what was an armadillo before it was an armadillo? Not to limit responses, I'd like anyone to tell me any pair of (A) to (B) creatures.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it just me, or does your post lack any relevance whatsoever?

The relevance is in the first sentence, where I'm agreeing with the OP.

There are so many gaps between cyanobacteria and man as to make evolution nothing more than a cheap game of connect-the-dots.

Evolutionists assume that the lines drawn between the dots represent trillions of species ... and I'm not willing to put my faith in missing links.

 

[The Engineer]

Rather than a made-up scenerio using generic creatures, I am asking for a specific scenerio using real creatures.

You didn't ask for anything, you gave me a false definition of transitional creature, and I corrected it. I don't need to give you a specific example to explain why your definition is false.

Since I brought up the armadillo, what was an armadillo before it was an armadillo? Not to limit responses, I'd like anyone to tell me any pair of (A) to (B) creatures.

Look, I'm not Google, and I'm not Wikipedia. I have better things to do than to do all the research for you. Here's a link, but don't expect me to do all your research.
http://armadillo-online.org/history.html

The relevance is in the first sentence, where I'm agreeing with the OP.

Well, thanks for being so specific! It's not like the OP posted two walls of text in a row!

There are so many gaps between cyanobacteria and man as to make evolution nothing more than a cheap game of connect-the-dots.

So because we can't give you a complete evolutionary line that spans from cyanobacteria to humans, you assume the whole theory is wrong, despite all the evidence we have for it. Sounds perfectly valid!

Evolutionists assume that the lines drawn between the dots represent trillions of species ...

More like billions of species, I guess.

and I'm willing to put my faith in missing links.

Well, good for you.

 

[mathclub]

i love that people who believe in the creationism rubbish blantantly ignore the whole process of science, the mountains of evidence and the findings of thousands of phd level scientists over the last 200 years, to go with so-and-so creationist because 'he has a phd!'

 

[rush1169]

Look, I'm not Google, and I'm not Wikipedia. I have better things to do than to do all the research for you. Here's a link, but don't expect me to do all your research.
Natural History of the Armadillo

I know you're not Google, but I do appreciate the link. I'm still not clear, so hopefully if it's not too much trouble you can just put the answer. The link says that the glyptodon and the panocthus are ancient and looked similar to an armadillo, although they were the size of a car and heavily armored while a modern armadillo is small and lightly armored. Obviously a glyptodon didn't give birth to an armadillo. To me, the implication is that over millions of years the glyptodon got smaller and smaller and retained less and less armor as it evolved into an armadillo? Is that right?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Now convince me you understand this. ^^^

This is common ground as most scientists don't understand it either. They just buy into it as a professional courtesy.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I know you're not Google, but I do appreciate the link. I'm still not clear, so hopefully if it's not too much trouble you can just put the answer. The link says that the glyptodon and the panocthus are ancient and looked similar to an armadillo, although they were the size of a car and heavily armored while a modern armadillo is small and lightly armored. Obviously a glyptodon didn't give birth to an armadillo. To me, the implication is that over millions of years the glyptodon got smaller and smaller and retained less and less armor as it evolved into an armadillo? Is that right?

That's the general sum of it. The Larger, slower Species wasn't able to survive the onslaught of Large Predators that invaded their habitat leaving the Smaller, quicker and more Wily off-spring to survive longer, passing on it's Trait of Smaller size to their Off-spring in each generation until you have the current species we have today.

"Selective" Breeding is but one influencing factor of Evolution. The Armadillo species survives to this day because it was able to adapt to environmental Pressures in the only way available to it.

 

[RickG]

The relevance is in the first sentence, where I'm agreeing with the OP.

There are so many gaps between cyanobacteria and man as to make evolution nothing more than a cheap game of connect-the-dots.

Evolutionists assume that the lines drawn between the dots represent trillions of species ... and I'm not willing to put my faith in missing links.

Fossils are rare. Soft bodied fossils are even rarer. Soft bodied fossils dating back 2 to 3 billion years are even rarer. It would be foolish to expect to see a Precambrian fossil record as robust as the Postcambrian record.

One thing that most people fail to realize is that all life on Earth from Archean Era through the Cambrian Period is exclusively marine. Taking into account plate tectonics and subduction zones where oceanic plates are consumed, the oldest oceanic plates are only 200 million years old of which there is very little left. What marine fossils that do remain before that time are found in sedimentary layers on continental crust that existed in a marine environment.

One cannot assume that once life begin that it should have evolved throughout that time as rapidly as it has in the past 500 million years. Prior to that an environment receptive to diverse life did not exist for two main reasons; (1) snowball earth events and (2) lack of an oxygen rich atmosphere and marine environment.

 

[rush1169]

That's the general sum of it. The Larger, slower Species wasn't able to survive the onslaught of Large Predators that invaded their habitat leaving the Smaller, quicker and more Wily off-spring to survive longer, passing on it's Trait of Smaller size to their Off-spring in each generation until you have the current species we have today.

"Selective" Breeding is but one influencing factor of Evolution. The Armadillo species survives to this day because it was able to adapt to environmental Pressures in the only way available to it.

So, at first the 2000lb glyptodons were being eaten by something, but the 1900lb glyptodons managed to escape. That pattern repeated, from 1900lb to 1800lb. Then from 1800lb to 1700lb. . . .then 300lb to 200lb. . . 100lb to 70lb. Also during that time the head went from 'round' to 'pointed', the spine went from fused to flexible, the armor became hinged, and many more skeletal features changed. Do you know if there are fossils of the progression of the glyptodon going from 2000lbs to 10lbs along with the associated skeletal changes?

It should also follow that before the glyptodon became 2,000lbs, there should too be a progression from a small glyptodon like creatuee (ie before the 2000lb glyptodon evolved). In other words, what was a glyptodon before it became a glyptodon?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

The relevance is in the first sentence, where I'm agreeing with the OP.

There are so many gaps between cyanobacteria and man as to make evolution nothing more than a cheap game of connect-the-dots.

So unless the police SEE THE CRIME, and even then they have to see the bullet at every single gradation of space from the gun to the victim, then we must assume that the alleged shooter is INNOCENT?

You see, in any science of a forensic nature you have to make the best hypothesis from the data at hand. So when you see:

you can infer quite a bit.

Or when you see this:

You can draw some conclusions.

Evolutionists assume that the lines drawn between the dots represent trillions of species ... and I'm not willing to put my faith in missing links.

"trillions of species"? Where did you hear that?

There are things in logic called Zeno's Paradoxes.

One of which is basically that: if I wish to go across the street I must first travel halfway across the street. But to get to that point I must first travel halfway to that point, but in order to get to that point I must first travel halfway to that point which would, in the end, result in an infinite number of tasks making it impossible to achieve my goal.

This is how Creationists see evolution. Unless they can be shown the infinite number of points along the line then surely it must not be true.

This is why if a Creationist demands a transition fossil be shown between animal 1 and animal 2 then all you've done is provide the creationist with two more demands they will make for transitional fossils. And so on and so-forth.

 

[RickG]

This is common ground as most scientists don't understand it either. They just buy into it as a professional courtesy.

I gather your academic background does not include any of the physical sciences nor employment in any physical science research area. I only surmise that from your comment, as it appears to demonstrate a lack of that experience. In fact, scientists are extremely persistent in pointing out poor scholarship and misuse of proper methods.

Here's an example. A paper was published by Spencer & Braswell (2011) in which they made certain claims. The response to that paper was quick and very specific about errors in their research. Here is one such published rebuttle, http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf. In fact the paper by Spencer & Braswell was found to be so flawed that the editor of the journal apologized for publishing the article and resigned. His resignation and apology is published in that journal and is here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf.