Gorilla Genome

[lifepsyop]

-_- I said genetics have to match the fossil record.

And I explained how you're wrong. They don't have to match in any specific sense.

Obviously no meeting our expectations does not equate to evolution being wrong

That's what I've been saying. Evolution theory is designed to be able to absorb contradictions... purely in a way that servers to insulate the theory from potential falsification.

An evolutionist is like a weatherman predicting that there will be weather.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And I explained how you're wrong. They don't have to match in any specific sense.



That's what I've been saying. Evolution theory is designed to be able to absorb contradictions... purely in a way that servers to insulate the theory from potential falsification.

An evolutionist is like a weatherman predicting that there will be weather.

Yes, they do, how do you not get that? If baboons were more closely related to us than chimps, it isn't reflected in the fossil record, and evolution as a theory would be very close to being disproven. The only way it wouldn't be is if a transition fossil was discovered as a case of convergent evolution. But order matters too: a fossil of a mammal predating the first amphibian would wreak the theory. A fossil of an amphibian predating any bony fish would wreak the theory. Evolution can be disproven, it just so happens that nothing like that has been found.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, they do, how do you not get that? If baboons were more closely related to us than chimps, it isn't reflected in the fossil record, and evolution as a theory would be very close to being disproven. The only way it wouldn't be is if a transition fossil was discovered as a case of convergent evolution.

I already refuted this. If you disagree then address my initial response.

But order matters too: a fossil of a mammal predating the first amphibian would wreak the theory. A fossil of an amphibian predating any bony fish would wreak the theory. Evolution can be disproven, it just so happens that nothing like that has been found.

Okay, let's go with this.... so you're basically saying given the supposed 550 Million Years of animal life on Earth, you're predicting that a mammal can only appear within the last 400 million years or so. (after the first amphibians)

My, that really is a stunning level of specificity.

Sadly, you won't be able to do much better than this kind of extreme vagueness. The more specific you try and get, the more you will be shown that Evolution theory fails to predict it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I already refuted this. If you disagree then address my initial response.



Okay, let's go with this.... so you're basically saying given the supposed 550 Million Years of animal life on Earth, you're predicting that a mammal can only appear within the last 400 million years or so. (after the first amphibians)

My, that really is a stunning level of specificity.

Sadly, you won't be able to do much better than this kind of extreme vagueness. The more specific you try and get, the more you will be shown that Evolution theory fails to predict it.

Sir, the theory was used to predict the location, age, and traits of a fossil that had never been seen before. It can be very accurate.

 

[lifepsyop]

Sir, the theory was used to predict the location, age, and traits of a fossil that had never been seen before. It can be very accurate.

Are you referring to Tiktaalik?

Again, this just demonstrates what I've been arguing. Evolutionists triumphed in this prediction of where evidence of "transitional" tetrapod anatomy should be found in the rocks. A few years later, evidence turns up of even more advanced tetrapod anatomy appearing almost 20 million years earlier (Polish trackways), thus contradicting the evolutionary assumptions that the original prediction was based upon.

What do evolutionists do? They continue to laud their original prediction, while simultaneously accommodating the direct contradiction into the theory.

It's a perfect example of how amorphous and jello-like Evolution theory is. Thank you for bringing it up.

 

[Papias]

Okay, let's go with this.... so you're basically saying given the supposed 550 Million Years of animal life on Earth, you're predicting that a mammal can only appear within the last 400 million years or so. (after the first amphibians)

My, that really is a stunning level of specificity.

First - as PS is pointing out, there is a lot more to it than that.

Second - it included the type of mammal, such as the fact that rodents will only be found in the last 80 of those 400. Multiply that by group after group, and the level of specificity is even more powerful.

Third - even if one were to naively take your simple 400/550 (= 0.73), that's for every single mammal fossil - of which there are many tens of thousands. So the odds of this by chance are = 0.73^30,000+, which is as close to zero as one can get.

That's obviously not "moldable" - quite the opposite of an infinitely stretchable idea like the flood "sorting" the fossils.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[PsychoSarah]

First - as PS is pointing out, there is a lot more to it than that.

Second - it included the type of mammal, such as the fact that rodents will only be found in the last 80 of those 400. Multiply that by group after group, and the level of specificity is even more powerful.

Third - even if one were to naively take your simple 400/550 (= 0.73), that's for every single mammal fossil - of which there are many tens of thousands. So the odds of this by chance are = 0.73^30,000+, which is as close to zero as one can get.

That's obviously not "moldable" - quite the opposite of an infinitely stretchable idea like the flood "sorting" the fossils.

In Christ-

Papias

Thank you sir. BTW, 20 million might sound like a lot, but in terms of evolution, especially with fossils that old, it is practically nothing.

 

[lifepsyop]

First - as PS is pointing out, there is a lot more to it than that.

Second - it included the type of mammal, such as the fact that rodents will only be found in the last 80 of those 400. Multiply that by group after group, and the level of specificity is even more powerful.

Ok good. Now you can be the first evolutionist ever to explain how Evolution predicts when rodents will evolve in the history of life on earth. (or any other mammal groups for that matter.)

The reason you can't do this, is because Evolution makes no such specific prediction. If early paleontologists had discovered a pattern of rodent fossils appearing 200 million years ago, then the narrative would have been written that this was the time period when natural selection pressures led to the evolution of rodents.

Evolution can't predict rodents will evolve ever... much less at what time.

Evolution theory simply adapted to the fossil record ad hoc. It does not predict anything specific.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok good. Now you can be the first evolutionist ever to explain how Evolution predicts when rodents will evolve in the history of life on earth. (or any other mammal groups for that matter.)

The reason you can't do this, is because Evolution makes no such specific prediction. If early paleontologists had discovered a pattern of rodent fossils appearing 200 million years ago, then the narrative would have been written that this was the time period when natural selection pressures led to the evolution of rodents.

Evolution can't predict rodents will evolve ever... much less at what time.

Evolution theory simply adapted to the fossil record ad hoc. It does not predict anything specific.

-_- Tiktaalik is exceedingly specific.

 

[lifepsyop]

-_- Tiktaalik is exceedingly specific.

Refuted above. Feel free to address my response to Tiktaalik.

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- Tiktaalik is exceedingly specific.

Specific of what?

 

[lasthero]

Ok good. Now you can be the first evolutionist ever to explain how Evolution predicts when rodents will evolve in the history of life on earth. (or any other mammal groups for that matter.)

Can it give an exact date? No. And I don't think anyone ever said it could. But it can tell us, for instance, that we should never expect to find mammals before repitiles, because mammals evolved from them.

It can tell us that the oldest snake fossils we find should have primitive legs, because snakes are unique among reptiles in not having limbs.

It can tell us that the oldest wasps we find should share characteristics with ants, because ants and wasps are closely related.

It can tell us that the oldest turtle fossils we find should have underdeveloped shells and beaks, because turtles are the only reptiles with these traits and would have to evolve them if they share ancestry with other reptiles.

It can tell us that the oldest frogs we find should share characteristics with salamanders, because the two amphibians are more closely related that siccealeans.

These are predictions that turned out to be true. They didn't just happen to be that way.

 

[lasthero]

Refuted above. Feel free to address my response to Tiktaalik.

You refuted nothing. The point was that Tiktaalik was what they expected to find, where they expected to find it. If evolutionary theory has no real predictive power, how did it make a prediction that turned out to be true? Was it a lucky guess?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Specific of what?

Specific in regards to being predicted to exist based in evolutionary theory. Location was predicted perfectly, age was predicted within acceptable error, traits were predicted with great precision. It is more astounding that predicting the specifics of a battle that occurred in ancient human history that had all records lost and physical evidence yet to be discovered down to the number of links in the armor of both sides, and predicting where to find a perfectly preserved body from the war that matches the predictions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Specific in regards to being predicted to exist based in evolutionary theory. Location was predicted perfectly, age was predicted within acceptable error, traits were predicted with great precision. It is more astounding that predicting the specifics of a battle that occurred in ancient human history that had all records lost and physical evidence yet to be discovered down to the number of links in the armor of both sides, and predicting where to find a perfectly preserved body from the war that matches the predictions.

Ok so it was predicted that this find would be in a specified rock at the specified age. They found it, but what they had hoped to find at that specific location and specific age was to be the fossil evidence for the water to land transition predicted for that specific age and location. Yet that is not what they found at all. They found that the Tiktaalik evolved long before that specific location and age. So the prediction was not confirmed.

So now you claim that the time period is really nothing...it is only 20 million years which is an acceptable error.

At a stroke, this rules out not only Tiktaalik as a tetrapod ancestor, but also all known representatives of the elpistostegids. The arrival of tetrapods is now considered to be 20 million years earlier than previously thought and these tetrapods must now be regarded as coexisting with the elpistostegids.

 

[JacksBratt]

Originally Posted by PsychoSarah

-_- I said genetics have to match the fossil record.

I didn't think that the fossil record had genetic information.

​

 

[lifepsyop]

You refuted nothing. The point was that Tiktaalik was what they expected to find, where they expected to find it. If evolutionary theory has no real predictive power, how did it make a prediction that turned out to be true? Was it a lucky guess?

Try reading and addressing my response. I explained it clearly.

 

[lasthero]

Try reading and addressing my response. I explained it clearly.

No, you didn't.

Was it a lucky? Did tiktaalik just happen to be there?

 

[lifepsyop]

Can it give an exact date? No. And I don't think anyone ever said it could. But it can tell us, for instance, that we should never expect to find mammals before repitiles, because mammals evolved from them.

Wrong, as evolutionists once believed mammals evolved directly from amphibians.

In any case, any reptiles or reptile-like animals could be said to simply share a common ancestor with mammals. This means mammals could potentially have evolved before reptiles. Diapsids and Synapsids could even be argued to be derived from a more basal therapsid/mammalian body plan if fossils were found in that order instead.

There's no necessary reason the Earth could not have been teeming with mammalian life before dinosaurs showed up. All just a matter of natural selection.

It can tell us that the oldest snake fossils we find should have primitive legs, because snakes are unique among reptiles in not having limbs.

No, the oldest snake fossils could have already lost their limbs. And more recent snakes could have more expressed limb traits making the transition look like it is in reverse.

It can tell us that the oldest turtle fossils we find should have underdeveloped shells and beaks, because turtles are the only reptiles with these traits and would have to evolve them if they share ancestry with other reptiles.

It doesn't tell you that at all. The most primitive turtles may have never fossilized leaving only the sudden appearance of shells. Shells could have been secondarily lost meaning "underdeveloped shells" appear after fully shelled turtle fossils.

These are predictions that turned out to be true. They didn't just happen to be that way.

You don't understand the theory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Originally Posted by PsychoSarah

-_- I said genetics have to match the fossil record.

I didn't think that the fossil record had genetic information.

​

Not directly in most cases, but here is how it goes: Living species have degrees of how closely related they are genetically. This degree of similarity should roughly match up with that of their last shared ancestor, and gives some amount of order to when certain traits must have appeared.