• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Intermediate??

Originally posted by unworthyone
Why? You've got a million fossils. It just doesn't make logical sense.

A million fossils out of how many organisms that have ever lived? A million times that many? More? The fossil record is but a speck compared to full history of every organism that ever existed.

So then it must be assumed, logically, that the fossil record can not be used as evidence to support common descent at any level.

Common descent makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil record. We have found fossils that match those predictions. What more can a reasonable person ask?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by unworthyone

Why? You've got a million fossils. It just doesn't make logical sense.


Take a million grains of sand, picked randomly from each of the beaches of the world. What are the chances you can put together a string of sand grains that originally laid side by side, even if each of them is marked with a code telling which other pieces were around it originally? Having millions of fossils doesn't help that much when there are millions of millions of dead creatures.

What does help is that there were somewhat fewer species than creatures, somewhat fewer genera than species, etc through the taxonomic hierarchy. At some point, you have a fairly good chance of putting together a series of related organisms, such as you are familiar with.


So then it must be assumed, logically, that the fossil record can not be used as evidence to support common descent at any level.

No, that's not quite true. One must choose an exceedingly narrow view of "evidence" to discount any evidence from the fossil record that does not come in the form of fine-grained transitional series.  
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
Morat: You think that my questions are riddles? Ok, then that must be why you answer me in riddles?

  I didn't say they were riddles. I said they were cryptic. You asked questions that were so non-specific that I was force to guess as to what you wanted to know.

   If that led to me answering the wrong question, I suggest you make your questions and comments more explicit.

You keep telling me what the animal would not look like but never what it would look like. Then you throw in an analogy that is equally full of holes. If you want us to understand evolution then you need to quit telling us how wrong we are and instead tell us what is right in your educated opinion.

  What do you want to know? You've seen the Archy fossil, which is a well-adapted feathered dinosaur. Flightless, but feathered. You've seen a well-adapted transition (that Nick objected to because it was soo adapted).

   As for telling you what's right: I've found that it's useless giving people specific answers if they're got the fundamentals wrong. Why? Because they think the answers don't apply, because they don't understand the question.

   Nick asked for a transitional. One was shown. He complained it wasn't, because it was well-adapted. His objection was totally invalid, but made because he didn't understand evolution. The answer was meaningless to him, because he didn't understand the concepts.

Yo say that the animal was always a complete specie. It was not born as a different animal than its parents. It did not change in its own lifetime. There was never an in between specie.

  There were lots of inbetween species. Speciation doesn't happen in one generation (Well, it can with plants. But plants can self-fertilize, and are prone to polyploidy).

   Ring species are an excellent example of how speciation works. A ring species is a species that exists in a loop, so to speak. Each grouping (sub-species) of the ring species can mate with the ones to either side of it (geographically). But the two ends of the ring cannot mate with each other.

   Where did it speciate? The ends of the ring species are seperate species, but all along the ring, each group can easily mate with the sub-species next to it (and produce fertile offspring. Hence the "sub-species).

 
 
Upvote 0
Folks, you let Stormy get away with an obvious incorrect fact.

Re:

strat.jpeg


and other similiar images.

 

Originally posted by Stormy
LiveFreeorDie: If you can't do better than that you may as well forget it.

You have proved the creationist view by your example!

An Elephant evolved from ..... An Elephant!!!

A Horse evolved from..... A Horse!!!!!


That's cool! :cool:

Just messing with you. LOL :D

Stormy, 

You have made a HUGE blunder here.

Hyracotherium ("Dawn Horse" which was once called eohippus) is not a horse.  If you saw one today you would not call it a horse.  Its called a horse simply because the existance of numerious fossil species intermediate between it and the horse.  Indeed as has been pointed out by some paleontologists that  it is probably not all that far from the common ancestor between of the horse and the rhino.  The reason why it is not called "Dawn Rhino" is that the fossil record between it and the rhino is not nearly as good as it is between it and the horse. 

A horse evolved from.....A Non-horse!!!!!

That's cool! :cool:

Much the same goes for the others.   I have seen a fossil elphant in a museum and if you wacked off the tusks it would not have been obvious (at least to a non-specialitist) that it was in the elephant tree.

Stormy, if you admit to the relationships depicted in those images, than you have accidently admitted to the reality of full blown evolution.  For these are not the evolution of mere varieties.

 
 
Upvote 0
the diagram adipithecus linked to is mapped to more info on the original website it came from. Here is a link:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

Click on the skulls, to see more information and some pictures.

Some, but not all, of the 'horses' on that 'tree' have photos of fossil reconstructions with them. This is Hyracotherium:
hyracoskel.jpeg
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Is that a cast? Do you know more about it? (what is it called? where does it fall in pachyderm phylogeny?)

Questions, questions, questions....

 

Here is the exact page it came from.  Gomphotherium is listed in the chart of fossil elephants in the first page of this thread.

I don't remember offhand if this one was a cast or an original.  It is certainly not unusual for research museums to keep the originals in the collections and have casts in the exhibits.  In any event,  this creature does not look much like an elephant found alive today.

 

Of course that is the point: if evolution is true this is what is expected.  Creatures with affinities to x to be found but are not x.  Are you listening Stormy?  :)

 
 
Upvote 0