Grand Canyon Disproves Creationism

[KWCrazy]

@KWCrazy

So nothing died before Adam? Interesting... not a single organism?

No animals. Nothing in which was the breath of life.

Did they all eat of the tree of life?

No. They were prevented from the gift of eternal life after choosing the consequence of death.

What then is the second death?

The destruction of the spirit after the judgment.

Why would God need to make two? If one is spiritual and one is physical to which to you do you think God was speaking about in the Garden of Eden?

God said that man would physically die as the result of Adam's sin. The world was cursed and death came to all living things. The second death is for those who face the judgment and are unworthy of Heaven but undeserving of Hell. They face eternal destruction.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

Revelation 20:
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Evolution CANNOT be your only point of contention to disregard any secular science!

Science is a great and wonderful thing, so long as we remember that we live in a world created by God which, in it's wonder, proclaims the glory of the Lord. There is wisdom in studying how the world functions, but foolishness in believing that the natural laws of this word have dominance over the will of the Creator.

 

[GBTG]

What matters is not what is traditionally taught, but what is true. We affirm the truth by going to the Word, not via the opinions of man. The Word tells us that man was created by God; that sin and death came into the world through Adam's sin, and therefor since there was no death there could be no evolution. Changing the word of God to conform to the theories of man doesn't make for a stronger belief, it makes for a rejection of God's word. Not that what I say I can validate through Scriptures. Nothing said contrary to the Scriptures contains truth. That's why man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

You do realize that the entire premise of your argument is based on MAN's interpretation of the WORD of God don't you? Unless you are equal to God's understanding, in that case I would gladly concede the whole argument?! If not then why is traditional opinion more accurate than opinion based on MORE information, that validates the WORD of God, thus proving His Word to be truth?! He did put us on the Earth, He did not say don't touch or observe anything. Curiosity question; Did God give Adam a job and if so why?

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[GBTG]

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

Did you actually understand what you quoted? Sin entered the world, this is evil that can be judged correct? An animal cannot sin, so cannot be judged, but it can die. Death (spiritual death as we can be judged) came to all people (humans), not all living things, poor inclusion or implication on your part for "every" living thing. All people (again humans) are held accountable. This applies to all the rest of the scripture you quoted, as sin ONLY applies to humans! This once again is a demonstration of how YEC twists scripture to attempt to validate a poorly understood biblical concept. Espousing this kind of logic and scriptural understanding is exactly why I say that YEC is a barrier to salvation!

Please stop this nonsense... you are making a mockery of the Bible and Christianity with said nonsense.

Regards, GBTG

 

[KWCrazy]

An animal cannot sin, so cannot be judged, but it can die.

And die they do in the world which was cursed after Adam's sin. Death and predation became the norm for carnivorous animals. Living things consume living things. The first animal to die was killed for clothing by God when He clothed Adam and Eve. Did that animal sin, or was it simply less important than clothing for man? Is God any less holy for killing an animal for it's pelt?

Death (spiritual death as we can be judged) came to all people (humans), not all living things, poor inclusion or implication on your part for "every" living thing.

Genesis 3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Cursed above all cattle and above every beast of the field. The entire world became cursed.

Romans 5:
12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned –13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed. 15 But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many! 16 And the gift is not like the one who sinned. For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation, but the gracious gift from the many failures led to justification. 17 For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more, 21 so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now you understand, right?

This once again is a demonstration of how YEC twists scripture to attempt to validate a poorly understood biblical concept.

Show me what is twisted.
I don't twist Scripture, I make sure to include enough so that it can be read and understood in context.

Espousing this kind of logic and scriptural understanding is exactly why I say that YEC is a barrier to salvation!

Jesus would be considered a YEC. Is He a barrier to salvation, or the pathway?
Which of us is making a mockery of the Scriptures, and which of us is quoting Scriptures?

 

[GBTG]

Um.... really, I am not even going to quote anything. You have missed the point, disregarded it completely, or misunderstood. Please show me anywhere in all the scriptures where spiritual death applies to anything but humans or angels? You are arrogant enough to claim Jesus's point of view. You are correct you are quoting scripture, but not correctly understanding what you are quoting. Again this is an example of tradition not understanding. I have repeatedly tried to demonstrate that the Bible describes two types of death. Only one of those deaths is of importance if you are saved. The other by the grace of our Lord and savior Jesus is removed from us... you have repeatedly tried to show that Death is only from sin, animals can die, but they cannot sin for they have no soul and cannot be written in the book of life. What's it called again? The book of life, opened at the white thrown judgment. How many animals does the Bible teach us are there? This is how you are twisting scripture! Death the removal of the spark of life was going on way before Adam! Again the replenish verb in "day" 6 of creation which you have not answered. This implies that many things died prior to this "day" and the creation of Adam. Spiritual death and judgment of our souls is what Adam bought with sin.

Cursed is not the same as sin... please look up these definitions before trying to equate the two.

Hint one is a punishment, and the other is an act of disobediance.

Regards, GBTG

 

[GBTG]

All opinion aside, Merry Christmas! I pray that God's blessings are poured out on all of you, through the grace and glory of the blood of Jesus Christ! Amen!

Best wishes, GBTG

 

[The Barbarian]

Stop with the evolution nonsense... even science has not shown this to be remotely true.

It's directly observed to happen, so there's no point in denying the fact.

Would you like to learn more about it?

 

[Job 33:6]

It's directly observed to happen, so there's no point in denying the fact.


Would you like to learn more about it?

@GBTG

Here is the difficult reality of the situation.

Biology and geology, even geography, geomorphology, physics and chemistry, and all their respective subfields, are all so well synchronized in their findings and conclusions. At least with respect to areas in which they overlap.

For example,

Biologists and geologists can independently make predictions and discoveries on where certain fossils ought to be, based on the fossil/geologic succession, which pairs and synchronizes with genetic patterns found in our DNA. Examples: Sarich Vincent and Allen Wilson in opposition to findings based around ramapithecus (and later findings of sahenanthropus), and the classic findings of tiktaalik in canadian, devonian, shallow marine beds.

Human Origins and Evolution - Vincent M. Sarich and Allan C. Wilson - "Immunological time scale for hominid evolution"
Neil Shubin’s Quest to Discover Tiktaalik—A Link Between Fish and Land-Animals

The predictions made between biological evolution in conjunction with the fossil record, are unprecedented. The idea of getting on a helicopter, flying to a remote place in canada, digging down 10 feet to shallow marine shales of the devonian, and findings tiktaalik specimen, really is a testament to how well understood the succession of life and biological common descent, is.

These fields come from their own independent lines of research and conclusions. They independently verify one-another.

But not every field is equally controversial. The age of the earth is not as controversial as biological evolution. And with that, it gets more acceptance. And rightly so, as it is well supported and dare I say, confirmed science.

The problem arrives when we realize that old earth geology confirms and varifies biological evolution and common descent, via the fossil succession. The predictions and conclusions made in old earth geology, are the same predictions and conclusions made through and by the theory of evolution, independently.

And so we find ourselves in this awkward position of either rejecting both geology and biology outright and all together, accepting both old earth geology and biology (including biological evolution), which is tough to synchronize with scripture. Or, lastly, some of us may be in the middle where we recognize the earth is old, but because of this, are driven into a position of accepting the fossil succession, which thereby confirms biological evolution.

 

[GBTG]

@KomatiiteBIF & @The Barbarian

Um... ok! I have to digress here... Are we talking about changes in a taxonomic groups i.e. speciation or are we talking about biological morphological changes? As an aside, I have spent a considerable portion of my career working in a transgenic core. I have performed pronuclear injections and have produced more chimeric mice than I care to admit. I have also spent a considerable portion of my career identifying phenotypic effects from genetic modification. I am well versed in genetics. Observations are one thing when discussing the outward appearance of an organism's shared traits. By this one could incorrectly conclude that a dolphin is more a fish than a mammal, genetics would say otherwise. I have stated many times in principal that I personally don't care for the general term of "evolution" as this implies or includes to many biological processes. Some of these biological processes are well known and understood, others are shall we say less understood. For me the the biological problem of "evolution" is not that we can understand where one species might be at any given "time" but rather, the mass speciation events. Pre-Cambrian to Cambrian, Ordovician to Permian, Permian to Mesozoic, Mesozoic to Paleocene. There is very little biological evidence and some of that might be incorrectly understood, as science does generally demonstrate a bias in hopes of showing evolution to be accurate. Speciation is a problem in all areas of science, there is no proof in the fossil record, nor in our current understanding of genetics. I would say that evolution from a genetics stand point is having the toughest time, as we are finding with more and more clarity, that we are much farther from Chimps than Bonobos, and that we are more like either, than they like one another, though their outward appearance would suggest the contrary. One cannot state that something is proven without proof. Tiktaalik in your example would still be in the same taxonomic group, this is not proof of specification or "evolution", this is proof of morphological changes due to environment. This gives the illusion of "evolution", by that method what will a duckbill platypus eventually become? Genetics says its a mammal, as do all of the anatomical characteristics that make it a mammal, though it would be easy to assume its half way to be one thing or another. Outward appearance has never been accurate as proof! So conclusions drawn purely from fossil "observations" or "successions" are significantly limited, and a poor example of "proof".

As the saying goes "looks can be deceiving"!

Lastly, I concur with @KomatiiteBIF that geology is a better example of confirmed science. As sciences go this is not an apples to apples comparison, way more is known and proved about Earth geology than is understood about biological sciences, therefore one is easier to demonstrate as accurate. In this case geology wins as an aid to understanding, where as biology tends too make as many questions as it answers. Lastly I know little to nothing about geology, biology on the other hand is my profession so I do understand a fair bit more than the average poster on the topic.

In reference to your articles biologists tend to like the most current literature as our knowledge is rapidly growing. The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes

Regards, GBTG

 

[Job 33:6]

@KomatiiteBIF & @The Barbarian

Um... ok! I have to digress here... Are we talking about changes in a taxonomic groups i.e. speciation or are we talking about biological morphological changes? As an aside, I have spent a considerable portion of my career working in a transgenic core. I have performed pronuclear injections and have produced more chimeric mice than I care to admit. I have also spent a considerable portion of my career identifying phenotypic effects from genetic modification. I am well versed in genetics. Observations are one thing when discussing the outward appearance of an organism's shared traits. By this one could incorrectly conclude that a dolphin is more a fish than a mammal, genetics would say otherwise. I have stated many times in principal that I personally don't care for the general term of "evolution" as this implies or includes to many biological processes. Some of these biological processes are well known and understood, others are shall we say less understood. For me the the biological problem of "evolution" is not that we can understand where one species might be at any given "time" but rather, the mass speciation events. Pre-Cambrian to Cambrian, Ordovician to Permian, Permian to Mesozoic, Mesozoic to Paleocene. There is very little biological evidence and some of that might be incorrectly understood, as science does generally demonstrate a bias in hopes of showing evolution to be accurate. Speciation is a problem in all areas of science, there is no proof in the fossil record, nor in our current understanding of genetics. I would say that evolution from a genetics stand point is having the toughest time, as we are finding with more and more clarity, that we are much farther from Chimps than Bonobos, and that we are more like either, than they like one another, though their outward appearance would suggest the contrary. One cannot state that something is proven without proof. Tiktaalik in your example would still be in the same taxonomic group, this is not proof of specification or "evolution", this is proof of morphological changes due to environment. This gives the illusion of "evolution", by that method what will a duckbill platypus eventually become? Genetics says its a mammal, as do all of the anatomical characteristics that make it a mammal, though it would be easy to assume its half way to be one thing or another. Outward appearance has never been accurate as proof! So conclusions drawn purely from fossil "observations" or "successions" are significantly limited, and a poor example of "proof".

As the saying goes "looks can be deceiving"!

Lastly, I concur with @KomatiiteBIF that geology is a better example of confirmed science. As sciences go this is not an apples to apples comparison, way more is known and proved about Earth geology than is understood about biological sciences, therefore one is easier to demonstrate as accurate. In this case geology wins as an aid to understanding, where as biology tends too make as many questions as it answers. Lastly I know little to nothing about geology, biology on the other hand is my profession so I do understand a fair bit more than the average poster on the topic.

In reference to your articles biologists tend to like the most current literature as our knowledge is rapidly growing. The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes

Regards, GBTG

I would say that a dolphin, morphologically, is clearly closer related to a mammal than to a fish. It has a blow hole and breaths air, it has bones in its flippers similar to hands or a person. But anyway...

You described tiktaalik as a product of morphological changes due to the environment. I would say, that is what evolution is. If you can have morphological changes as a product of environmental stresses (as you have stated), to the extent that tiktaalik, a fishapod with rotating wrists and a turning neck and robust shoulders...would form, in a world previously which only had fish...without necks, wrists and shoulders (and flat heads like a crocodile)...and then even further when we enter the carboniferous, to have amphibians morphologicaly transition into reptiles. Or reptiles to mammals, or reptiles to birds etc.

To go from a theropod, to something more bird like via morphological changes due to environmental stresses.

Thats what its all about.

 

[GBTG]

Thats what its all about.

The only problem with this is that it still does not change from one taxonomic group to another... there are significant genetic limitations to this!

The evolutionary reality of higher taxa in mammals

The problem with evolution is the red circles, there is no fossil proof or genetic information to support the "common" ancestors within the same taxonomic group much less, differing taxonomic groups. We know a lot about each of these species above the blue line, below the blue line we know very little. "Evolution" would suggest that there are animals at each of the red circles. The fossil record on the other hand is devoid of these animals for any taxonomic group. If "evolution" were true, why is this information missing for all species throughout the whole of the fossil record? Drawing lines based on observations may look nice but the implication is just that, a guess. This is why I state that there is an "illusion" of "evolution" based on "observation"! I won't go into all the genetic limitations, you can look up papers on this topic. Key words for said search would be genetic paradox, chromosome lengthening, genetic hybrid limitations, etc.

Regards, GBTG

 

[Job 33:6]

The only problem with this is that it still does not change from one taxonomic group to another... there are significant genetic limitations to this!

The evolutionary reality of higher taxa in mammals

View attachment 217104

The problem with evolution is the red circles, there is no fossil proof or genetic information to support the "common" ancestors within the same taxonomic group much less, differing taxonomic groups. We know a lot about each of these species above the blue line, below the blue line we know very little. "Evolution" would suggest that there are animals at each of the red circles. The fossil record on the other hand is devoid of these animals for any taxonomic group. If "evolution" were true, why is this information missing for all species throughout the whole of the fossil record? Drawing lines based on observations may look nice but the implication is just that, a guess. This is why I state that there is an "illusion" of "evolution" based on "observation"! I won't go into all the genetic limitations, you can look up papers on this topic. Key words for said search would be genetic paradox, chromosome lengthening, genetic hybrid limitations, etc.

Regards, GBTG

You say the fossil succession is devoid of animals linking taxonomic groups.

Why would the fossil succession be predictable through genetics and vise versa? If not that the animals of the past were biologically linked through common descent? Tiktaalik being our current example.

 

[GBTG]

Tiktaalik being our current example.

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

"In many news articles, Tiktaalik was billed as "the missing link" between fish and land vertebrates — but that description is a bit misleading. First, Tiktaalik is more accurately described as a transitional form than a missing link. Transitional forms help show the evolutionary steps leading from one lineage to another by displaying characteristics of both the ancestral and the new lineage. These character suites help us understand the order in which the traits of the new lineage evolved and what functions they served as they evolved. Tiktaalik, for example, had fins with thin ray bones, scales, and gills like most fish. However, it also had the sturdy wrist bones, neck, shoulders, and thick ribs of a four-legged vertebrate. Tiktaalik was specialized for life in shallow water, propping itself up on the bottom and snapping up prey. The adaptations it had for this lifestyle ended up providing the stepping stones for vertebrates to climb onto dry land — but of course, Tiktaalik was not "aiming" to evolve features for land-living. Tiktaalik was simply well-adapted for its own lifestyle and later on, many of these features ended up being co-opted for a new terrestrial lifestyle."

By this assertion a duckbill platypus is also a transitional form... the problem being, that whether you call it a "transitional form" or a "missing link", the genetics (if we could test them) would say it belongs to a specific taxonomic group. The problem with "evolution" is that one taxonomic group has never been shown to become another, so the verbiage "steps leading from one lineage to another by displaying characteristics of both the ancestral and the new lineage. These character suites help us understand the order in which the traits of the new lineage evolved and what functions they served as they evolved..." and "...many of these features ended up being co-opted for a new terrestrial lifestyle..." is an assumption, not proof. There are very few "transitional forms" in the fossil record as Tiktaalik and the Duckbill platypus have demonstrated here. If evolution were indeed a fundamental function of nature there would be significantly more examples (red circles previous post). What are the odds then of the ~8.7 million species of only two "transitional forms" being found in the fossil record if we count the Duckbill Platypus?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

Odds are very low for "evolution" to be a function of nature, aside from the timing and speed at which speciation appears to have happened which complicate matters further.... As stated biology adds just as many problems as it tries to fix in arguments such as this. I was just demonstrating that "evolution" is a poor reason to disregard other sciences such as geology, and that evolution is far from "proven" by observation. You can either accept this limitation or you cannot, but its still a very poor reason to disregard OEC according to geology.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Job 33:6]

Well the duckbilled platypus wasnt found in the devonian between fish and tetrapods. So the analogy doesn't apply. It wasnt predicted to exist, prior to its discovery in a remote place in canada, 10 feet underground either. (based on paleontology and evolution based predictions).

Which returns me back to my original question of, why genetics could be used to predict where fossils exist, and vise versa, if organisms of the fossils succession were not linked via common descent?

 

[Job 33:6]

" If evolution were indeed a fundamental function of nature there would be significantly more examples (red circles previous post)."

And, i wonder, if I could give you more, would it matter how many I gave? I'm sitting on tiktaalik because it is a common, textbook example. And, thus far, you have mentioned the duckbilled platypus, but im not sure that you are responding to the question of why the location of fossils can be predicted through genetic relatedness. Which, im sure you recognize is true. So im just wondering, if not through common descent, why would such a pattern in the fossils exist in a way which matches patters in genetic makeup?

 

[Job 33:6]

Heres another example, just to add to the discussion. Another very common, textbook example. Archaeopteryx.

You have theropod dinosaurs, dinosaurs that take on morphological traits similar to birds. Then later in the geologic succession, there are birds. And in between times of theropod dominance and bird dominance, there are theropod like birds and bird like theropods and early birds. There is a mix. And Archaeopteryx is in there, with traits of both bird and theropod. A long tail, fenestra in the skull, teeth. hipbone and pubus are partially directed toward its rear. But it has feathers, wings even, and spurs, and lanky wing arms like birds. And really archaeopteryx is just one of a whole host of bird like theropods that just so happened to exist prior to birds coming to dominate the skies, but after theropods took over. And of course, genetically, birds are closer related to reptiles than fish or amphibians.

They could have been anywhere in the paleozoic and anywhere in the cenozoic. Or even in the early triassic. But no, they were more in the mid jurassic to cretaceous.

So theres another example, and this is where birds ought to be in the earth, based on genetic and morphologic similarities. If common descent were true.

 

[Job 33:6]

And one more to add here,

Archaeoceti - Wikipedia

There are a whole host of land-to-sea transitionals. Rodhocetus for example, is sort of a small whale like animal. Whale like teeth, long head, fused neck. Its a small whale. Yet, it has hands. Fingers and toes, but still like tiktaalik with robust bones behind its legs, like something that would walk on land.

Where is it in the rocks? Well its after your ungulates, and before your whales. And it too rests with a whole collection of whale like, ungulate like fossils. Even if someone took a critical eye to this large collection of transitionals, we still are sitting here with whale like, but not whale, mammals, that are positioned in the rocks right where you would think they would be. They could have been anywhere in the paleozoic or the mesozoic. We are talking about 550 million years worth of fossiliferous geologic succession. But it wasnt in any of that, rather the collection is right there in the oligocene. And simultaneously, whales are more genetically and anatomically closely related to land based mammals than reptiles, and moreso than amphibians and moreso fish.

So, through an understanding of genetics, these fossils also, along with tiktaalik and archaeopteryx, exist where you would think they would be. If common descent were true.



And you can do this with any transition. You can even do it with plants. You can guess where the earliest flowering plants or seeded plants or vascular plants will be, in the geologic succession of rocks, based on genetic and anatomic relatedness of modern day plants as well. And feel free to test this. Where would the first vascular plants be in the earth if common descent were true? Well, they would predate seeded and flowering plants, and they do.

Cooksonia - Wikipedia

 

[GBTG]

And, i wonder, if I could give you more, would it matter how many I gave? I'm sitting on tiktaalik because it is a common, textbook example.

I am sitting on micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution. Phenotype is not genotype. There is no way to test the genetics (currently) of any of these examples (except Duckbill platypus), so we are going off phenotype not genotype. Phenotypic similarities are just that, predictive as you describe is a misnomer. This is like saying we can predict a mammal that has adapted to live in the ocean would look similar to a dolphin, because we have a dolphin as a reference. We can take that a step further and say that if we looked at a specific ocean at a specific time in the past and we have animal A and animal C, that we should see animal B somewhere between the two, as a missing link or transitional form. This is essentially what evolution claims. The problem however is not that simple. A fish of any type, giving rise to a reptile of any type, that became a dinosaur of any type, that became a bird of any type, that became lets say a chicken... might be plausible IF time was not a concern. I think you would agree that geology shows very specific speciation events. Within these events we see very rapid speciation, faster than adaptive changes would allow (which generally causes extinction). Comparing one event to another, one might see traces of the previous "transitional form" as the environment is not that dissimilar. The problem then comes back to genetics, as we understand DNA currently, can't and doesn't change this rapidly for higher order animals.

The second problem is one of mathematics, I tried to demonstrate this with the red circles and you gave Archaeopteryx as an example. Statistics don't bode well for evolution for diversity either... There are ~800 types of dinosaurs classified. Is it probable that of the ~10,000 birds classified today all evolved from 1 out of 800 classified dinosaurs if Archaeopteryx is the transitional form? Where did that much genetic diversity come from? If they all did not come from Archaeopteryx where are the other transitional forms, and where would we expect to find them in the geological record? Again there is no genetic proof (phenotypic proof is unreliable), of any species becoming another species, there is no genetic half-ling, if evolution were part of nature we should be able to observe or test one of the ~8.7 million species currently living today, but we can't. If "evolution" were as factual as you claim then the science community would have stepped up and banged its chest and declared it to the whole world. That has not happened... so the verdict is still out, which means, at best "evolution" is a theory not yet proved. Again you cannot prove it so why are we having this discussion?

I know not how we got off topic in the first place but as a biologist I can state that evolution is NOT a fact, at best its a theory. As for biological understanding versus geological understanding, the premise is still that geology is a far better understood science where the grand canyon is concerned. In my opinion geological evidence is conclusive proof that the Earth is old and that the days in genesis are the "days" of God, not of man.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think you are really responding to my argument of predictability. And I dont think you are making a clear refutation of my claim either. It sounds like you are saying, "i dont think we know of a biological means by which mass speciation events could occur, therefore predictions in paleontology might be predicting something other than descent with modification".

Which seems odd to me, I would ask, what are we predicting then?

"Within these events we see very rapid speciation, faster than adaptive changes would allow (which generally causes extinction). "

If the transition occurred over tens of millions of years, what numerical limitation are you referring to that would prevent this kind of diversification?

"If they all did not come from Archaeopteryx where are the other transitional forms, and where would we expect to find them in the geological record? "

Currently existing birds arent present in the succession right after theropods. You wont find a regular duck from around the corner, in the mesozoic. However, you still have other transitional forms within the collection. Birds with more modern and derived birdlike features. So, if we were to ask ourselves, where would we find a fossils connecting modern birds to archaeopteryx, well, if archaeopteryx were around 150 million years old, and modern birds are present today, we ought to find transitionals within that range (150 mya to present). And we do...

Jeholornis - Wikipedia
Sapeornis - Wikipedia
Pygostylia - Wikipedia
Confuciusornithidae - Wikipedia
Ornithothoraces - Wikipedia

Confuciusornis - Wikipedia
Yanornis - Wikipedia
Ichthyornis - Wikipedia
Gansus - Wikipedia
Hongshanornis - Wikipedia
Hesperornithes - Wikipedia

Some began losing their tail, some lost their teeth and developed beaks, their skulls became fused and the shape of their bones became more modern and bird like. There are collections of transitionals, that are more bird like, but arent equivelant to current day living birds. And these changes occurred over some 50 million years before even reaching the end of the cenozoic.

But I just want to point out as well that, this diversity only occurred after theropods took on more bird like traits, which only occurred after smaller theropod dinosaurs came to be. If not by common descent, really birds could be anywhere in the succession. They could be anywhere in the paleozoic but they arent. Theyre right after theropods, which just so happen to look like them.

Even if hypothetically, you could not find a convincing argument for how the genetic diversity occurred during expedited speciation events, it would still be clear that this is a product of common descent. And if it were not (which seems to be what you are proposing), then what would it be?

And beyond that, I just want to add that we know these speciation events have been tied with mass extinction events, which are times in which great environmental changes and environmental stresses come to be. But in periods of time not associated with mass extinction, we still have speciation, just at slower rates. So we have various rates of speciation and various rates of morphological change. Some fast, some slow.

So even beyond that, you propose that speciation occurs at rates that are too fast for adaptation to keep up with, I would ask, what about times of slow morphological change?

 

[GBTG]

@KomatiiteBIF

We can have this debate, as many people do all around the world when trying to prove "evolution". Bottom line is that it is not proven. Everything you have brought up is indeed a phenotype, the problem is we do not know the genotype. Unless we know the genotype we cannot say for certain if say Archaeopteryx is genetically as bird or genetically a reptile (dinosaur). So far genetics has demonstrated time and time again that its one species or another but not both. And the genetic differences are so significant that they are not capable of interbreeding. Hence one taxonomic group giving rise to another has not been seen in the genetics, we can make all the ASSUMPTIONS we want about phenotype. The problem still remains the same! "Evolution" is not proven... environmental phenotyipcal observations may be predicative but a bird still gives rise to a bird, a reptile a reptile and so on and so forth. If Archaeopteryx is genetically a bird where did the GENETICS switch? Science cannot prove the genetic portions yet if ever. Hence at best "evolution" is a theory. You cannot prove it here as biologist have not proven it anywhere else. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject, but you can either accept that or you can't, but currently its a fact that "evolution" is not yet proven.

GBTG