Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

Is this some kind of prosecutorial trick question? I have never seen the tiktaalik fossils -- not even pictures of them. Do you want me to confess, or compose?
Dan

See post 648

 

[Job 33:6]

I want you to acknowledge the fact that tiktaalik shares features seen in both fish and amphibians. ie. scales, fins, opposable wrists, flat head, unfused neck etc.

That or you are in denial.

And if you dont know anything about tiktaalik, read about it.
A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan

 

[Job 33:6]

a, Left lateral view; b, dorsal view with enlargement of scales; and c, ventral view with enlargement of anterior ribs. See Fig. 3 for labelled drawing of skull in dorsal view. Abbreviations: an, anocleithrum; bb, basibranchial; co, coracoid; clav, clavicle; clth, cleithrum; cbr, ceratobranchial; ent, entopterygoid; hu, humerus; lep, lepidotrichia; mand, mandible; nar, naris; or, orbit; psp, parasphenoid; ra, radius; suc, supracleithrum; ul, ulna; uln, ulnare. Scale bar equals 5 cm.

 

[Job 33:6]

Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

Type specimen (NUFV108): ventral surface of cranial block (figured in ref. 6) aligned in preserved position with ventral view of the block containing the pelvic fin. (Inset) Line diagram of lepidotrichia and preserved portions of endochondral bones of pelvic fin. f, fin; i, intermedium?; l, lepidotrichia; r, radials.

Tiktaalik roseae, stereopairs of the right pelvis from NUFV108 in (A) ventral (cranial is to the Top), (B) dorsal (cranial is to the Bottom), (C) caudal (lateral is to the Right), and (D) cranial views (lateral is to the Left). A, acetabulum; i, ilium; p, pubis; r, ossified ridge; u, unfinished bone.

Cladogram with right pectoral and pelvic girdles drawn to the same scale. (A) Pectoral girdles in lateral view. (B) Pelvic girdles in ventral view. (C) Pelvic girdles in lateral view. Figures were modified, and relative proportions were derived, from refs. 10, 16, and 17, and NUFV108. Cranial to the Right in A and C; Cranial at the Top in B.

 

[Job 33:6]

Once you become aware of the fact that tiktaalik has both fish features and tetrapod features, and you become aware of the fact that tiktaalik is present after the onset of the age of fish, and is present after the earliest fish (early devonian), but appears before the carboniferous and late amphibian to early reptile dominance...

Then you will understand that it is by definition a transitional.

Same with the whales. Pakicetus and that whole crew of fossils, all have whale like features, and through temporal locations of rocks, they become more and more like whales.

No whales are observed in the rock record before them, only right after them.

It also makes logical sense because whales breathe air, yet live in the sea. So if evolution were true, we hypothetically would see this. And its testable too. Find a whale before pakicetus. Its never been done, why? because whales evolved. Simple as...

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I want you to acknowledge the fact that tiktaalik shares features seen in both fish and amphibians. ie. scales, fins, opposable wrists, flat head, unfused neck etc.

The tiktaalik is no longer on the creation science radar. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?

Will you admit there are substantial incremental steps required for the transition from a fish head, girdle and circulatory system into the unconnected head morphology of the tiktaalik, of which there are no known transitional forms?

At best the tiktaalik is an extinct mosaic.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

a, Left lateral view; b, dorsal view with enlargement of scales; and c, ventral view with enlargement of anterior ribs. See Fig. 3 for labelled drawing of skull in dorsal view. Abbreviations: an, anocleithrum; bb, basibranchial; co, coracoid; clav, clavicle; clth, cleithrum; cbr, ceratobranchial; ent, entopterygoid; hu, humerus; lep, lepidotrichia; mand, mandible; nar, naris; or, orbit; psp, parasphenoid; ra, radius; suc, supracleithrum; ul, ulna; uln, ulnare. Scale bar equals 5 cm.

Does that prove macroevolution?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

Type specimen (NUFV108): ventral surface of cranial block (figured in ref. 6) aligned in preserved position with ventral view of the block containing the pelvic fin. (Inset) Line diagram of lepidotrichia and preserved portions of endochondral bones of pelvic fin. f, fin; i, intermedium?; l, lepidotrichia; r, radials.

Tiktaalik roseae, stereopairs of the right pelvis from NUFV108 in (A) ventral (cranial is to the Top), (B) dorsal (cranial is to the Bottom), (C) caudal (lateral is to the Right), and (D) cranial views (lateral is to the Left). A, acetabulum; i, ilium; p, pubis; r, ossified ridge; u, unfinished bone.

Cladogram with right pectoral and pelvic girdles drawn to the same scale. (A) Pectoral girdles in lateral view. (B) Pelvic girdles in ventral view. (C) Pelvic girdles in lateral view. Figures were modified, and relative proportions were derived, from refs. 10, 16, and 17, and NUFV108. Cranial to the Right in A and C; Cranial at the Top in B.

Does that prove macroevolution?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Once you become aware of the fact that tiktaalik has both fish features and tetrapod features, and you become aware of the fact that tiktaalik is present after the onset of the age of fish, and is present after the earliest fish (early devonian), but appears before the carboniferous and late amphibian to early reptile dominance...

The Tiktaalik was buried by sediments from the same flood as all other creatures in the geologic column.

Then you will understand that it is by definition a transitional.

Who made up that deceptive definition? Shouldn't you first have to prove there was macroevolution?

Same with the whales. Pakicetus and that whole crew of fossils, all have whale like features, and through temporal locations of rocks, they become more and more like whales.

Nonsense. There is no evidence of macroevolution in any of the blizzard of charts you have bombarded us with. But I must give someone credit for some highly imaginative artwork.

No whales are observed in the rock record before them, only right after them.

The sedimentary rock layers were deposited by the same flood waters, over the period of about a year.

It also makes logical sense because whales breathe air, yet live in the sea. So if evolution were true, we hypothetically would see this. And its testable too. Find a whale before pakicetus. Its never been done, why? because whales evolved. Simple as...

It makes logical sense from the fossil record that there has been no macroevolution.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, I'm moving on. You're unable to respond to my words.

The tiktaalik is no longer on the creation science radar. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?

Will you admit there are substantial incremental steps required for the transition from a fish head, girdle and circulatory system into the unconnected head morphology of the tiktaalik, of which there are no known transitional forms?

At best the tiktaalik is an extinct mosaic.

Dan

This isn't a response to me. This is you changing the subject for the 50th time.

You have failed to respond over and over again to my posts.

With that, I'll be moving on now. I'll give you the final word.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Alright, I'm moving on. You're unable to respond to my words.

This isn't a response to me. This is you changing the subject for the 50th time.

You have failed to respond over and over again to my posts.

I told you I have never seen the Tiktaalik fossils, so how do you expect me to answer questions about them? I most certainly do not believe anything Neil Shubin wrote.

I have that silly book, "Your Inner Fish", which he had the gall to sub-title, "The amazing discovery of our 375-year-old ancestor". That is insane! Shubin lives in a fantasy world, as does anyone else who believes he has a shred of credibility.

For the record, why are you flooding the board with charts containing highly-imaginative artistic mock-ups, as if they prove anything? Anyone who has ever debated knows that flooding the debate with "data", blitzkrieg-style, is a common debater's trick.

Besides, what makes your questions more important than mine, which you rarely address?

No matter, the Tiktaalik is nothing but an extinct species. Anyone who presents it as proof of macroevolution is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. There is no proof of macroevolution: not in the fossil record, not in the DNA, not at all.

With that, I'll be moving on now. I'll give you the final word.

We shall see.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This is a great lecture on the failure(s) of the evolution model, by Dr. Robert Carter, PhD, Marine Biology, University of Miami:

Dan

 

[4x4toy]

Dr. Rob Carter also gives a great talk on Earth's age

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Dr. Rob Carter also gives a great talk on Earth's age

Thanks. That is an excellent interview, as are all in the Cornerstone TV Origin series. There are playlists of Dr. Carter and other creation scientists, here:

Creationism - Bible Research Tools

Dan

 

[NobleMouse]

"Prove it. While we're waiting for the 65-million-year long experiment to run its course, do you have a Bible passage that gives hints of supporting this view? I've got passages for my position."

If you said that someone traveled around the planet 100 times, and you told me that it was evidence against evolution because evolution states that it is impossible, and I turned and said, well, it doesnt seem impossible to me, nor does it seem to contradict evolution....

Then you cant turn to me and say "well, you need to prove that you can travel around the world 100 times, in order to demonstrate that it is possible, in order to refute my claim of impossibility."

Thats not how logic works. You make the claim, and you justify it. Which is why I had asked you if you were aware of any research demonstrating why soft tissue could not last millions of years if protected in a definite crystal lattice after rapid burial.

Happy Monday, hope you had a good weekend! I wasn't sure I could follow the 100 times around the world/evolution part, but think I can hang with the research demonstrating why soft tissue could not last millions of years: collagen decay rates and DNA decay rates don't support anything beyond ~650k years... nor will iron preserve proteins for such long periods (attached articles with further detail):

Solid Answers on Soft Tissue
Can Iron Preserve Fossil Proteins for Eons?

"how does evolution predict the written records "

If the best evidence you can come up with for the recent existence of live dinosaurs, are obscure drawings and odd language about behemoths in old literature, then its no wonder nobody takes such a position seriously.

Thankfully, it is we the scientists who are in control of the classrooms. Thats about all I can say in response to the above comments.

The best evidence is the Bible, you keep skipping over this... but even scientifically speaking with regard to soft tissue, millions of years are not supported... then there are also written records and renderings (if listing in order of relevance or weight, the Bible would be first in the list). COLLECTIVELY these all tell a consistent story, and it's not one of tens of millions of years separating humans/dinosaurs. Odd you would adamantly argue radiometric dating of different isotopes present the same age of a rock and this is "irrefutable proof" of it's age in your mind (even though there are generally discrepancies among the various isotopic dating methods), yet here when we're not even talking within the same field (1. The Bible, 2. Scientific research around soft tissue, 3. Secular writings and renderings... completely unrelated to each other) you fail to see they are all supporting the same truth. I'll be interested to see if you address this or if you instead decide to avoid by delving into the topic of radiometric dating. Keep dancing around the conspicuous facts, I'm enjoying the show as a spectator.

"Even secular scientists have admitted that life abruptly shows up and abruptly ends in the fossil record. Not true?"

Even Gould acknowledged forms of speciation via mutation and natural selection as a potential means by which common descent has occurred. You should read his research so that you understand what he is saying.

I'm not a proponent of Gould's positions on origins so might as well have referenced beliefs held by Richard Dawkins. As I stated before, there are no mechanisms that support life abruptly showing up... but perhaps clarifying that there are no natural mechanisms that have been demonstrated to support life abruptly showing up. We can believe in things like natural selection and random mutation being the drivers, but we just don't see it demonstrated in either the lab or in nature - yes we can see the finch beaks getting bigger, but it doesn't support the first flying life form... from nothing. Genesis 1:20 seems to give us a good hint of how the first flying creatures came about, but it directly involved a supernatural God (not natural selection and random mutation) and if God created flying creatures on day 5, well that would explain why they abruptly show up in the fossil record and that goes for every other form of life He created too. Going back to your illustration of the 100 times around the world, I guess I can believe I can travel around the world 100 times, but if I never actually do it... then we just call it blind faith.

 

[Job 33:6]

Happy Monday, hope you had a good weekend! I wasn't sure I could follow the 100 times around the world/evolution part, but think I can hang with the research demonstrating why soft tissue could not last millions of years: collagen decay rates and DNA decay rates don't support anything beyond ~650k years... nor will iron preserve proteins for such long periods (attached articles with further detail):

Solid Answers on Soft Tissue
Can Iron Preserve Fossil Proteins for Eons?

Do you have sources that aren't religiously motivated? It is nice hearing from our Christian brothers and sisters, but at times, they aren't necessarily more accurate, just because of the faith we share.

I'm not a proponent of Gould's positions on origins so might as well have referenced beliefs held by Richard Dawkins. As I stated before, there are no mechanisms that support life abruptly showing up... but perhaps clarifying that there are no natural mechanisms that have been demonstrated to support life abruptly showing up. We can believe in things like natural selection and random mutation being the drivers, but we just don't see it demonstrated in either the lab or in nature - yes we can see the finch beaks getting bigger, but it doesn't support the first flying life form... from nothing. Genesis 1:20 seems to give us a good hint of how the first flying creatures came about, but it directly involved a supernatural God (not natural selection and random mutation) and if God created flying creatures on day 5, well that would explain why they abruptly show up in the fossil record and that goes for every other form of life He created too. Going back to your illustration of the 100 times around the world, I guess I can believe I can travel around the world 100 times, but if I never actually do it... then we just call it blind faith.

Well Gould doesn't propose that life...abruptly showed up. The person in the video, Kurt Wise, described some kind of a stasis and related it to punctuated equilibrium. But PE, doesnt actually state that species abruptly appear. Because Gould's descriptions are referring to...long spans of time, like millions of years. Abrupt in the eyes of a geologist, is eons in the eyes of a biologist. Its a matter of perspective.

Regarding the 100 times around the world thing, to simplify it, I was basically just asking for sources demonstrating that long term preservation of pliable tissue, is not possible.

Thanks Mouse

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, you continue to bring up radioactive dating, but you know nothing of geology. You arent in a position to critique radioactive dating if you do not have an understanding of relative dating to begin with. Its like trying to shoot 3 pointers when you are still learning to dribble. Youre saying that I am avoiding discussing how to shoot 3's, well, i dont bother shooting 3's with people who cant dribble.

Show me that you can dribble, and can shoot 1s and 2s, then we can shoot 3s together.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

Check this out.

This was published in 2011, which is pretty recent.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tish_archaeological_and_paleontological_sites

These scientists are actually on the forefront of determining just how long certain forms of collagen last in animals dated back 1.5 million years. This is relatively new research in uncharted territory.

 

[NobleMouse]

Do you have sources that aren't religiously motivated? It is nice hearing from our Christian brothers and sisters, but at times, they aren't necessarily more accurate, just because of the faith we share.

I'll leave it at what I've provided. The research was done by well-qualified scientists and you attempting to discredit on the basis of their faith comes as a surprise and I'm kind of disappointed.

Well Gould doesn't propose that life...abruptly showed up. The person in the video, Kurt Wise, described some kind of a stasis and related it to punctuated equilibrium. But PE, doesnt actually state that species abruptly appear. Because Gould's descriptions are referring to...long spans of time, like millions of years. Abrupt in the eyes of a geologist, is eons in the eyes of a biologist. Its a matter of perspective.

Regarding the 100 times around the world thing, to simplify it, I was basically just asking for sources demonstrating that long term preservation of pliable tissue, is not possible.

Thanks Mouse

I agree PE doesn't actually state that species abruptly appear... but rather is a response to the apparent lack of transitional forms that were once expected to be found... even by the loose standards of evolutionists. The research done on soft tissue demonstrated collagen and DNA doesn't last for even a million years (let alone 65+Ma), both of which are being found in dinosaur bones. You asked for sources, and I provided. In fairness though, if you wish to not agree with their results, that is fine.