I would like to debate the evidence for evolution!

[Smidlee]

Pretty much, yes. Although you seem to be missing the part where some genes get duplicated before they break. For example, a snake's salivary enzyme gene can duplicate and then one copy breaks, so now it has both that salivary enzyme and a venom.

That's one reason I reject evolutiion. Breaking genes is not good evidence when evolutionist claimed eyes evolved over 40 times and boobs only once.
Evolutionist accuse creationist of the very thing they are guilty of yet creationist will admit their bias. You force the evidence to fit your worldview then deny you are doing it.

 

[Smidlee]

Scientists can sway their data to show what they want, yes. But they cannot make up where they found something. The fact of the matter is scientists determined where they should be able to find a fossil with certain characteristics, then looked there and found it. You can either claim that it was luck or that their predictions were accurate. You can't say that they were nearly guaranteed to find it wherever they look.

That's like some guy saying he has magic oil-detecting abilities, then going to a place not currently known to have oil and finding it exactly where and how deep he said he would. Would you say "Well DUH he found oil there!" or would you say "Wow, how did he know the oil was there?" Or I guess you could say he got lucky, but what are the odds of that?

The problem is evolutionist has fail miserably at prediction of the fossil record. When they finally find one that fit their prejudices they make a lot of noise while forgetting about the thousands of time they were wrong. With thousands of evolutionist make up all kind of stories they have to be about to guess right some times. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is simply not true.. You are going on a foundation of false information. The fact is that all species are found in every layer of the earth all together. There are no separate layers with only simple life forms.. that is a total lie and fabrication of evolutionists.

This is just ignorance. If all species were found everywhere on earth, you wouldnt have more dinosaurs found in western US and invertebrates in easter US

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem is evolutionist has fail miserably at prediction of the fossil record. When they finally find one that fit their prejudices they make a lot of noise while forgetting about the thousands of time they were wrong. With thousands of evolutionist make up all kind of stories they have to be about to guess right some times. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

What is your explanation for how tiktaalik was discovered then? How was it that, in a remote location in canada, people could go to a specific layer and find a specific fossil?

Do you just think it is all pure luck?

I go to cambrian rocks and all i ever find are cambrian fossils. When I go to devonian rocks, all i find are fish and tetrapod fossils. Is it just a coincidence to you?

 

[Smidlee]

What is your explanation for how tiktaalik was discovered then? How was it that, in a remote location in canada, people could go to a specific layer and find a specific fossil?

Do you just think it is all pure luck?

I go to cambrian rocks and all i ever find are cambrian fossils. When I go to devonian rocks, all i find are fish and tetrapod fossils. Is it just a coincidence to you?

What you explanation according to evolutionist finding tetrapods footprints 18 million year early to the tiktaalik fossil? This is not what evolutionist predicted.
As Jones noted Tiktaalik is not the first evolutionist claimed to be the missing link

The question is, “Is Tiktaalik a fish or a land animal?” Nobody really knows for sure. Did it have gills? Did it have lungs? Nobody knows. Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out to have mammary glands? Unfortunately, there is no way to tell (unless one turns up alive somewhere).

Speaking of turning up alive somewhere, remember the coelacanth? It was once believed to have been the missing link between fish and land animals. It had fins that looked like they might have been sturdy enough to walk upon. Experts told us it lived in shallow fresh water, and probably used its fins to crawl up on land, and went extinct millions of years ago. It turned out to live in deep salt water, and its fins were too weak to support its weight.

Now the experts are telling us that Tiktaalik lived in shallow fresh water and had fins strong enough to push its head out of water. It was just last December when scientists were telling us that Acanthostega was the missing link between fish and tetrapods. At that time we said,

"A few years from now, evolutionists will no doubt replace this fairytale with a new one."

We admit it. We were wrong. It was just four months, not a few years.

A Fishy Ancestor

Evolutionist just replace one fairy tale with another. This is good evidence it's complete nonsense.

 

[Job 33:6]

What you explanation according to evolutionist finding tetrapods footprints 18 million year early to the tiktaalik fossil? This is not what evolutionist predicted.
As Jones noted Tiktaalik is not the first evolutionist claimed to be the missing link A Fishy Ancestor

Evolutionist just replace one fairy tale with another. This is good evidence it's complete nonsense.

First off, you cannot answer my question. But for the sake of discussion, i will answer yours.

Had a reptile, any reptile, or any mammal, or any bird at all been found in the mid to late devonian, it would be an issue.

However, regarding paleontology, and this is not uncommon. When it comes to looking at fossils that are close in geologic age to one another, there will always be debate. One person finds the first evidence of tetrapods at say 375 and says look, here resides the first tetrapod! Another comes along and says, no no, here is mine at 390, mine is first! And often they will go back and forth until more fossils of tetrapods are found that fine tune the timeline to a greater extent.

Both tetrapod fossils reside a mere 15 million years apart, geologically. Whereas complex fossils are found dating back 600-650 million. So, the debates that go on, do not obstruct the fossil succession, rather they are a fine tuning of it.

I like to think of the fossil succession like a musical instrument. Ever play a guitar or piano? When tuning a guitar you start by tightening your strings on the headstock. Then once they have the general sound, EADGBE, then you fine tune each string on the bridge.

Had any mammal, any mammal at all, any bird, any reptile. Any of these been found prior to or simultaneous with the onset of marine to terrestrial evolution, it would be like taking the G or D strings and swapping them with the E or A. It would make the instrument lose its order of sound.

But when you have a debate going on between whether or not the A string is sharp or if it is just right. This is common and this is how the fossil succession is fine tuned.

---------------------------------------------------------
With that said, would you care to answer my question now? How was tiktaalik found in the middle of a remote place in canada? Ill take it further, how was it found 10 feet underground in rock that is that of fresh water deposits? The rock chosen for the search of tiktaalik was aged between eusthenepteron and acanthostega (also valid transitional fossils). Do you think that tiktaaliks discovery here was pure chance?

 

[Job 33:6]

@Smidlee

One other thing I wanted to add. 99.9999% of species on earth go extinct by the nature of how difficult it is for animals to survive extended periods of time. The fossil succession isnt necessary something that shows the precise ancestor of the next stage of animals. Odds are, many fossils found are those of animals that have gone extinct.

However, it should be understood that, the fossil succession is still present. With good reason. While it is likely that many animals we find as fossils have gone extinct, the succession still depicts the change of life through time, if not through direct ancestry, then still through closely related offshoots of that direct line. So when it comes to fine tuning the fossil succession (like that of tetrapod evolution), and determining lineage within relatively short amounts of time, you might see numerous closely related organisms and it may take time to hammer out the precise time in which that group of animals appeared.

 

[Smidlee]

First off, you cannot answer my question. But for the sake of discussion, i will answer yours.

Had a reptile, any reptile, or any mammal, or any bird at all been found in the mid to late devonian, it would be an issue.

However, regarding paleontology, and this is not uncommon. When it comes to looking at fossils that are close in geologic age to one another, there will always be debate. One person finds the first evidence of tetrapods at say 375 and says look, here resides the first tetrapod! Another comes along and says, no no, here is mine at 390, mine is first! And often they will go back and forth until more fossils of tetrapods are found that fine tune the timeline to a greater extent.

Both tetrapod fossils reside a mere 15 million years apart, geologically. Whereas complex fossils are found dating back 600-650 million. So, the debates that go on, do not obstruct the fossil succession, rather they are a fine tuning of it.

I like to think of the fossil succession like a musical instrument. Ever play a guitar or piano? When tuning a guitar you start by tightening your strings on the headstock. Then once they have the general sound, EADGBE, then you fine tune each string on the bridge.

Had any mammal, any mammal at all, any bird, any reptile. Any of these been found prior to or simultaneous with the onset of marine to terrestrial evolution, it would be like taking the G or D strings and swapping them with the E or A. It would make the instrument lose its order of sound.

But when you have a debate going on between whether or not the A string is sharp or if it is just right. This is common and this is how the fossil succession is fine tuned.

---------------------------------------------------------
With that said, would you care to answer my question now? How was tiktaalik found in the middle of a remote place in canada? Ill take it further, how was it found 10 feet underground in rock that is that of fresh water deposits? The rock chosen for the search of tiktaalik was aged between eusthenepteron and acanthostega (also valid transitional fossils). Do you think that tiktaaliks discovery here was pure chance?

What does this have to do with evolution fairy tale? They find out of place fossils all the time like those footprints earlier than the fossil of the creature. It's common to find footprint older than the creature which would point to some kind of flooding event.
We have history of evolutionist being totally wrong over the coelacanth and now they are claiming the exact same thing about the tiktaalik. There is nothing to explain since it's based on human imagination.

 

[Job 33:6]

What does this have to do with evolution fairy tale? They find out of place fossils all the time like those footprints earlier than the fossil of the creature. It's common to find footprint older than the creature which would point to some kind of flooding event.
We have history of evolutionist being totally wrong over the coelacanth and now they are claiming the exact same thing of the tiktaalik. There is nothing to explain since it's based on human imagination.

Do you understand that there is a difference in finding say, a mammal or bird in the devonian, and finding tetrapod tracks in the devonian? What youre referring to, these footprints, are tetrapod tracks discovered in the devonian.

In a general discussion, if someone came to me and asked me "hey when did tetrapods appear in the fossil succession?" I would typically just say, oh yea, in the devonian. Even without even acknowledging the tracks thats just the way it is.

So by promoting the discovery of tetrapod footprints in the devonian, youre just reinforcing the position of the fossil succession. Youre fine tuning the fossil succession.

The same could not be said if you found any sort of mammal at all, or any reptile at all, or any bird at all, in that same rock.

Shall I ask my question a third time or do you not have a response for it?

 

[Smidlee]

@Smidlee

One other thing I wanted to add. 99.9999% of species on earth go extinct by the nature of how difficult it is for animals to survive extended periods of time. The fossil succession isnt necessary something that shows the precise ancestor of the next stage of animals. Odds are, many fossils found are those of animals that have gone extinct.

However, it should be understood that, the fossil succession is still present. With good reason. While it is likely that many animals we find as fossils have gone extinct, the succession still depicts the change of life through time, if not through direct ancestry, then still through closely related offshoots of that direct line. So when it comes to fine tuning the fossil succession (like that of tetrapod evolution), and determining lineage within relatively short amounts of time, you might see numerous closely related organisms and it may take time to hammer out the precise time in which that group of animals appeared.

99.9999% of speices has gone extinct is totally based on evolutionist imagination and not on the fossil record.

 

[Job 33:6]

99.9999% of speices has gone extinct is totally based on evolutionist imagination and not on the fossil record.

Do you have a response for my question?

 

[Job 33:6]

Ill report my question with further explanation...

Aside from Tiktaalik being a transitional with scales, fin rays, and gills (fish like), but also eyes on the top of its head, mobile neck, and lungs (amphibian like), there is also the question for YECs of how tiktaalik was found. The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron). Nobody had explored the rock tiktaalik was found in. Rather, the rock was selected by looking at a geologic map that identified rock of a particular age. That and it was discovered in rock of a particular type formed by freshwater deposits (not deep marine or igneous or terrestrial or metamorphic etc.).

Young Earth Creationists just cant explain something like this.

But old earth creationists, or people who recognized biological evolution and an old earth can, with ease.

Those who discovered tiktaalik literally took a map to see where rocks were present up in a remote place in canada. Got on a helicopter and flew out to the middle of nowhere. Dug down 10 or so feet to lacustrine deposits, and there they found tiktaalik.

What is the YEC explanation for this? There is none.

 

[Smidlee]

Do you understand that there is a difference in finding say, a mammal or bird in the devonian, and finding tetrapod tracks in the devonian? What youre referring to, these footprints, are tetrapod tracks discovered in the devonian.

In a general discussion, if someone came to me and asked me "hey when did tetrapods appear in the fossil succession?" I would typically just say, oh yea, in the devonian. Even without even acknowledging the tracks thats just the way it is.

So by promoting the discovery of tetrapod footprints in the devonian, youre just reinforcing the position of the fossil succession. Youre fine tuning the fossil succession.

The same could not be said if you found any sort of mammal at all, or any reptile at all, or any bird at all, in that same rock.

Shall I ask my question a third time or do you not have a response for it?

Are you rejecting the claims that evolutionist themselves have made that a tetrapod footprint was found older than the tiktaalik in which they don't believe was fully tetrapod?

 

[Smidlee]

Do you have a response for my question?

I don't beleive in the evolution fairy tale so I don't try to ram a fossil to prove a theory that doesn't line up with the fossil record. Stasis is the overall evidence of the fossil record.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you rejecting the claims that evolutionist themselves have made that a tetrapod footprint was found older than the tiktaalik in which they don't believe was fully tetrapod?

No of course not. Because finding tetrapod tracks/footprints in the devonian at 390 million years old, is of little surprise considering tiktaalik and the fossil succession of tetrapods at large is already found right in that timephrame. Eustheneptoron, considered a transitional in the earth stages of fish to tetrapod evolution was discovered in rock 385 million years old. A mere 5 million years in difference. In a fossil succession history that spans 650 million years +.

As Ive said before, theres a difference between finding tetrapod tracks in the devonian and finding say, mammal tracks or bird tracks or reptile tracks.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't beleive in the evolution fairy tale so I don't try to ram a fossil to prove a theory that doesn't line up with the fossil record. Stasis is the overall evidence of the fossil record.

So you have no explanation? Do you think it was pure chance that the founders of tiktaalik got on a helicopter and flew out to the middle of nowhere in canada, dug down 10 feet to fresh water deposits and found tiktaalik?

Just pure chance? Luck?

 

[Smidlee]

No of course not. Because finding tetrapod tracks/footprints in the devonian at 390 million years old, is of little surprise considering tiktaalik and the fossil succession of tetrapods at large is already found right in that timephrame. Eustheneptoron, considered a transitional in the earth stages of fish to tetrapod evolution was discovered in rock 385 million years old. A mere 5 million years in difference. In a fossil succession history that spans 650 million years +.

As Ive said before, theres a difference between finding tetrapod tracks in the devonian and finding say, mammal tracks or bird tracks or reptile tracks.

Are you sure there are no mammals tracks in devonian since boobs doesn't seem to leave any tracks? As far as we know Tiktaalik could have been a mammal.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you sure there are no mammals tracks in devonian since boobs doesn't seem to leave any tracks? As far as we know Tiktaalik could have been a mammal.

Mammals have bones, they can make tracks. So can birds, so can reptiles. They also can leave their skeletons behind and can be fossilized. And no, tiktaalik wasnt a mammal, it had scales and fins. I dont know what mammals you have ever been around, but they dont have scales, gills and fins.

 

[Smidlee]

So you have no explanation? Do you think it was pure chance that the founders of tiktaalik got on a helicopter and flew out to the middle of nowhere in canada, dug down 10 feet to fresh water deposits and found tiktaalik?

Just pure chance? Luck?

"Speaking of turning up alive somewhere, remember the coelacanth? It was once believed to have been the missing link between fish and land animals. It had fins that looked like they might have been sturdy enough to walk upon. Experts told us it lived in shallow fresh water, and probably used its fins to crawl up on land, and went extinct millions of years ago. It turned out to live in deep salt water, and its fins were too weak to support its weight."

 

[Job 33:6]

I will ask again, because it is significant.

Do you think it was pure chance that the founders of tiktaalik got on a helicopter and flew out to the middle of nowhere in canada, dug down 10 feet to fresh water deposits and found tiktaalik?

Just pure chance? Luck?