Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

So what about all the other creatures that have also either remained the same or are just smaller versions of the same creature. What about all the creatures that look modern and are found with dinos.

Such as?

What about the carbon dating of dinos to be less than 40,000 years.

That is at the limit of carbon dating, which means that it is extremely hard to tell the difference between a 60 million year old and 40,000 year old fossil using carbon dioxide, even assuming that you are measuring organic carbon from that individual organism.

What about he K/Ar, Rb/Sr, U/Pb and associated isochron methods that all put the K/T boundary at 65 million years old, and well within the accuracy range of these methods?

What about the dino soft tissue.

Indeed, what about it? Until you can show how multiple radiometric methods can all give the same date for the K/T boundary, you really don't have a case.

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible. Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE
​

What about the genetic evidence which shows a different tree of life than the one built on the observational records which is used for the geological column.

I have already exposed your use of a bait and switch. The trees are built on DNA sequence, not gene regulation.

Its Ok to say that the coelacanths are just one creature that has remained the same . . .

Please show us a fossil coelacanth that is the same as the living species. The genus Latimeria is not found anywhere in the fossil record.

Then you have all the convergent creatures that happen to have evolved the same way as distant unrelated animal.

I have also addressed this false claim on many occasions. Repeating it does not make the refutations go away.

The re dating of creatures and the ever expanding geological layers to accommodate the new discoveries which are blending the fossil record into larger layers with creatures remaining the same for longer.

Found that Cambrian Bunny yet?

Add to this the Cambrian explosions and other points in the fossil records where many creatures appear from out of nowhere and then disappear.

Darwin explained why this happens in the fossil record about 150 years ago.

"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Some only to turn up again and all without any trace of where they came from and showing no signs of the gradual evolutionary changes that Darwin talked about.

This Darwin?

"Hence, when the same species occur at the bottom, middle, and top of a formation, the probability is that they have not lived on the same spot during the whole period of deposition, but have disappeared and reappeared, perhaps many times, during the same geological period. So that if such species were to undergo a considerable amount of modification during any one geological period, a section would not probably include all the fine intermediate gradations which must on my theory have existed between them, but abrupt, though perhaps very slight, changes of form."

"But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created. "

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

So when you put all this together there are more than a few anomalies and contradictions that cast doubt on the picture painted by evolutionists.

All of which I have addressed on multiple occasions, explanations which you ignore and then repost the same matieral as if has never been addressed.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are not getting it. What is called for is not a fossil getting recognition as a transitional, that would need certain features that would satisfy some demand and have an acceptance of evolution, which seems very important to you that others come to. For real transition through descent to be recognized, it should be with fossils of all the types of creatures that would be involved for that to happen. With many fossils around of almost any kind, that should be there if any such descent happened. Otherwise it is a matter of connecting dots with it guessed about what happens in-between. Design from a common plan would explain an arrangement like that.

What features would a fossil need in order to be part of this collection of transitional forms?

Nobody is expecting mammal to bird transitionals.

Why not?

If not for evolution, why wouldn't we expect a half mammal and half bird species as much as we would expect a half mammal and half reptile species? Why do we see the reptile-like mammals but not the bird-like mammals?

The fossils are also consistent with a pattern of design being used intelligently from one Creator for all, with variations being used on it in ways that will work well. I had already come to see it that way before.

How is a nested hierarchy an intelligent pattern?

 

[FredVB]

You are not getting it. What is called for is not a fossil getting recognition as a transitional, that would need certain features that would satisfy some demand and have an acceptance of evolution, which seems very important to you that others come to. For real transition through descent to be recognized, it should be with fossils of all the types of creatures that would be involved for that to happen. With many fossils around of almost any kind, that should be there if any such descent happened. Otherwise it is a matter of connecting dots with it guessed about what happens in-between. Design from a common plan would explain an arrangement like that.
Nobody is expecting mammal to bird transitionals. So we only talk about linked designs between reptiles and mammals, which scientists, whom I can indeed call evolutionists as they accept evolution as an approach and not creation with intelligence at all, consider for a model of evolution.
The fossils are also consistent with a pattern of design being used intelligently from one Creator for all, with variations being used on it in ways that will work well. I had already come to see it that way before.
To be clear of what you show for communicating, would it be for saying Dimetrodon which I have indeed seen represented enough before was directly producing Thrinaxodon, which then after that at a later time directly produced Probainognathus, which then later directly produced Morganonucodon, which later directly produced a monotreme (which one?), Yanoconodon, and a Eutherian (which one, an opossum?)?

What features would a fossil need in order to be part of this collection of transitional forms?

Nobody is expecting mammal to bird transitionals.

Why not?
If not for evolution, why wouldn't we expect a half mammal and half bird species as much as we would expect a half mammal and half reptile species? Why do we see the reptile-like mammals but not the bird-like mammals?
How is a nested hierarchy an intelligent pattern?

Why do you claim that no one expects mammal to bird transitions? What do you think a pegasus is? What do you think an angel is? What do you think a Persian sphinx is? These are all chimeras that humans have thought up, but do not exist in the real world. Why not?
Why wouldn't a whale with feathers work? Feathers are good insulation... penguins use them and they swim great. Why not a whale with gills? They wouldn't have to hold their breathe as long as they do underwater. They could even have both lungs and gills, like lung fish do. They could breath air on the surface and use gills diving down deep. That would be a great design.
We don't know if certain species begat certain others. They would be representative of such species that did, however. In other words you had a number of species, some of which gave rise to anothers which diversified. Then some of those species did the same, etc. We don't know for certain which ended in a dead end and which gave rise to those that evolved further.

For being convincing in order to be part of this collection of transitional forms a fossil will need any features that fit it in a sequence with fossils of others to which it is being shown to be related with smooth transitions showing the evolution.to newer kinds. This would be in place of assuming the evolution between them connecting them where there aren't fossils to show it.

There isn't expectation of transition from birds to mammals because there are not all the same designs that they are based on as there are from some reptiles and some mammals. This shows evolution to you, and many others that will not consider God to be involved in that. But this shows creation of kinds from common design from the Creator for those of us that will see it.

This creation from design does need need the uninterrupted sequence of transition, so nothing of that is expected from those seeing that, and any looking for transitions do not look based on mythology of beings that are not known in this world, as a pegasine or a sphinx. That is why I can say it is not expected. Any that believed in such coming to this world were not including thought of evolution of such to explain them. Angels, which seem to me to be mostly winged superhumans or shining superhumans, are not in any way transitional to anything, but beings in their own right, from the creation from God.

Clearly not everything that might be thought of coming from designs that were put into use had to be created as well. We are given our imaginations, we can use that as much as we want with our creativity in coming up with fantasy to share, this is fine to do with freedom we are given for that and it is not necessary that all that we will think of would need to be already made somewhere. Those that are made and in existence generally work very well in what they do where they are.

With just representatives that themselves may not provide the descent, with it guessed that there were some others that did, leaves guesswork in-beween with evolution still assumed.

God will have his own purposes of working with a pattern of working with common bases of design, however we interpret it.

 

[CabVet]

God will have his own purposes of working with a pattern of working with common bases of design, however we interpret it.

There is no such thing as common design.

 

[stevevw]

Mostly you are showing that in some cases the earliest of a particular group is later found to have existed earlier than was known. This is hardly surprising, since any fossil representing a taxonomic group found in a particular strata only indicates that the group is at least that old. It hardly shows they are all being pushed back to the Cambrian Period.

The re dating of creatures does a number of things. When it says that modern birds have been found with dinos and they were around a lot earlier than though it puts doubt on the gradual evolution of birds from dinos. Its almost saying that birds were around even before dinos. But at least it is showing not just ancient half formed birds were around which is what wed expect if they slowly evolved from dinos. But modern more developed birds were around. So one re dating also affects the animals around them. If it pushes one lot back it may also push others back as a result. It also de creases the time for evolution of some animals and overlaps others so it makes the progression that has been promoted as not fitting a nice neat picture.
[FONT=&quot]Discovers are pushing back the ages of lost organisms often. A particular striking example of fitting “fact” to theory was the result of discovering a winged insect in the Lower Silurian, pushing back previous ages some 80 million years.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But because insects depend on plants, even without fossil proof, so-called scientists had to push the origin of plants way back into the Ordovician (Engel 2004).[/FONT]

The last one about C-14 dating of dinosaurs is in regards to research by some guys that was rejected, because they used C-14 dating of fossilized bones to determine how old the animal was when it died. It only shows how old some of the rock is, not the animal. They were measuring the carbon in the minerals, not the original organism. That is why no one uses C-14 to date fossilized specimens. Why are you all of a sudden using C-14 dating methods as evidence anyway? I thought radioisotope dating was all flawed? I guess its only flawed when you want it to be.

I havnt really made any definite statements about dating methods. Only to say I dont think they are completely reliable. You have to use a number of methods to support the evidence. Thats why along with the soft tissue and other things like Dino artifacts and drawings seems to indicate than they were around later than we think.

Evolutionists use the age of rocks to date bones all the time. They also use the age of bones to date rocks. So it seems OK for them. When someone uses the same methods but gets a result that shows their results may be wrong they then begin to question the very methods they use themselves. But it seems that the researchers were dating the bones and not the rocks anyway. This was found not just from one test but many and they were not religious scientists either.
[FONT=&quot]Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.[/FONT]
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/pre...umans-hunting-dinosaurs-discovered-in-kuwait/
Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7444/full/nature11978.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130411

[FONT=&quot]There are completely modern looking animals in allegedly ancient geologic layers in places that are definitely NOT supposed to be in.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] If dinosaurs evolved into birds, then the dinosaurs would come first in the fossil record, in deeper layers than the birds.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Even Scientific American admits that birds lived alongside dinosaurs (Dyke, 2010).[/FONT]
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/

If there is a modern species found in the fossil record that was given a different name to cover up the fact it is modern, please show us an example.

[FONT=&quot]A complete skeleton of a giant penguin was recently found in the tropics of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Peru[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that is said to be 36 million years old. The skull is here compared to the skull of the only penguin living in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Peru[/FONT][FONT=&quot] today along with an artists rendition of this 5 foot tall creature. There are no fewer than 17 species of penguins living today and scientists recognize approximately 32 species that have become extinct. Evolutionists claim that penguins probably evolved from flying birds 40 million years ago but the evidence supports the fact that penguins have always been penguins, although many species within the penguin "kind" have become extinct.
[/FONT]
Different names for the same animal? [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Carl related how evolutionary scientists give fossils different genus and species names from the living forms, creating the illusion of evolution: “Let me give you an example. A scientist found a fossil sea urchin in Cretaceous rock that looks nearly identical to a modern Purple Heart sea urchin, but assigned it to a completely new genus (Holaster). If you saw that creature alive in the ocean you would recognize it as a Purple Heart sea urchin (genus Spatangus). The different name suggests that sea urchins have changed over time, but this is contrived ‘evidence’ for evolution. The fossil looks the same as the living one.” (See photos right[/FONT][FONT=&quot])

[/FONT]

[SIZE=+1]Shrimp: Supposedly 220 million years old.

[SIZE=+1] Lobster [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Dragonfly [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Horseshoe Crab [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Jelly Fish [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Nautilus [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Sea Horse [/SIZE]

[/SIZE]
Another problem mentioned by Woodmorappe (1999f) is that slightly different features in cephalopods have been used to date a layer of strata to a different age. These slightly different biological features cause one type of organism to be split into a different species, genera, families, etc. Since taxonomic splitters have had the upper hand in taxonomy, how meaningful are such taxonomic and age manipulations to the geological column? We know that species of living organisms, like dogs and pigeons, have a great morphological variety. How do we know whether the variety found in an extinct organism is not from intraspecies variation?

All these creatures are exactly the same as their modern day equivalent. But of course evolutionists give them special names to show they are ancient ancestors. But when you look at them they are the same creature. A crab is a crab and a lobster is a lobster even if they are given funny scientific names to make out they are older. The only reason they are said to be ancient is because of the rock layers they are found in. So once again its that dating thing that is determining what they are and where they came from. But anyway they show little if no evolution.

 

[SteveB28]

If I were you, I wouldn't be mounting an argument using Jan Peczkis as a source. He has been revealed as a fraud many times over. Peczkis is the real name of 'John Woodmorappe'.

 

[stevevw]

If I were you, I wouldn't be mounting an argument using Jan Peczkis as a source. He has been revealed as a fraud many times over. Peczkis is the real name of 'John Woodmorappe'.

I wouldn't have a clue who he is and that doesn't change the point. The point is that there are issues with the naming of taxa and whether they are new species or just varieties of the same species. Some evolutionists are quick to rename a creature a new species even when it looks very much the same if its found in a different layer as I have linked in earlier posts. This avoids any conflicts with out of place fossils and gives the creature a new species and links to show evolution. Others disagree and say that the new creature is just a variation of the same creature. These are call lumpers and splitters.

So if the new find is classed as just a variety of the same species thats has been found in another layer this would then force evolutionists to expand those layers and re date them. This starts to have an effect on other layers and their dating and when creatures evolved into others on the fossil columns they have made. So its a contentious topic and one that is open to interpretation.

 

[SteveB28]

I wouldn't have a clue who he is and that doesn't change the point. The point is that there are issues with the naming of taxa and whether they are new species or just varieties of the same species. Some evolutionists are quick to rename a creature a new species even when it looks very much the same if its found in a different layer as I have linked in earlier posts. This avoids any conflicts with out of place fossils and gives the creature a new species and links to show evolution. Others disagree and say that the new creature is just a variation of the same creature. These are call lumpers and splitters.

So if the new find is classed as just a variety of the same species thats has been found in another layer this would then force evolutionists to expand those layers and re date them. This starts to have an effect on other layers and their dating and when creatures evolved into others on the fossil columns they have made. So its a contentious topic and one that is open to interpretation.

No, no, you are terribly in error. When you present an argument that relies heavily upon sources of evidence, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that those sources have integrity.

Mr Peczkis (Woodmorappe) has been exposed as being fraudulent and dishonest in his work. To use him as a source seriously weakens your argument. So it does very much "change the point". Until you furnish reliable sources of evidence, the "point" is that your argument is based in fraud and cannot be taken seriously.

You are to be pitied, however. As a clear supporter of the creationist cause, you have a limited choice of sources. And, unfortunately, a goodly portion of them have been shown to be scurrilous charlatans and liars. I sympathise.

 

[stevevw]

Gracchus

You have posted "evidence" that does not back up your claims. You do not seem to realize this. You say here are twelve examples of "ghost species" and "here are fifteen more", and it would seem you never even notice that they have many examples in common, nor does the fact of ghost species threaten in any way the theory of evolution.

For some reason the quote button isn't working properly so I have had to copy and paste myself.

You obviously have come in later and not seen the links I had posted before. The first three questions you ask about the evidence for animals found with dinos, living fossils or the creatures that have remained the same for millions of years and the the dating of dinos I have already answered in earlier posts. I have linked the evidence already.

What you see is what you want to see.

Fubnny thats exactly what I said about evolutionist. Just goes to show how the evidence is up fro interpretation. The only thing is when someone says for example that they find a new fossil and it is more or less exactly the same as another one how do you see that. Do you automatically say its a new species or do you say it is the same species with variations. This to me would normally be the same species as that is what we se in life now. But because it is found in a earlier different layer they have to make i another species because otherwise it would contradict evolution. So when you say I see what I want to see how do you know others are not doing exactly the same. The difference is what I see just what there is, that the creature is the same creature because it looks the same. Thats what the evidence mostly points to.

You don't "buy into" reality.

Umm I just see things for what they are. I think its the other way around to be honest and the evidence seems to be showing this more and more. Take a look at the photos and tell me what do you see, the same creature or a new species or even a new genus as some evolutionists try to say they are.

"Delusion n 1. (Psychiatry) a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur.
2. (Psychiatry) a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason. See also illusion, hallucination
3. (Psychiatry) the act of deluding or state of being deluded
deˈlusional adj deˈlusive adj deˈlusively adv deˈlusiveness n delusory adj"

As I said how do you tell with observational evidence who is right and who is wrong. Its all based on observation (what it looks like). I can show you several cases where scientists have been found out wrong about species where they thought the animals looked like something and were wrong. The case is the skulls from Georgia is a good example where all the variations of
the skulls covered the one species. This showed that scientists had been to quick to label every new shaped skull as a new species when they were just variations within the one species. Its the same for the video posted which actually made juvenile animals of the same species into new species to show intermediates for evolution. So what people see can be made into something they want to see from both sides of the debate.

It's a pity you don't listen to answers.

I do but like you I happen to disagree with them. The only difference is I allow you to do that without ridiculing you.

Science is, by its very nature, non-religious, in that it can only address what is verifiable, countable and measurable. Religion does not limit itself to objective reality.

Yes I agree and I have heard this often as a way of trying to show how the scientific side is not subject to anything and it just seeks what is fact. What people forget is that there are human being behind that science who can be influenced to manipulate those facts. They can add in their bias and present things in a way that makes it look more in favor of what they personally believe. In that sense its very much like religion. You only have to look at climate science.

Let's be clear. Scientists devote their lives to the study of a subject. They publish their work so that it can be inspected and critiqued by other scientists. Sometimes they disagree. But there are some things these dedicated people do agree on. They agree, for instance, that 2 + 2 = 4. And they agree that the modern theory of evolution is essentially correct. Anyone who disagrees with that theory is free to bring forth evidence and testable hypothesis to challenge it.

OK well first off I dont disagree with evolution completely. There are aspects I and many other Christians believe are valid and have evidence for. Its just the degree of evolution we are talking about. So I was mainly looking at individual cases earlier and not necessarily the entire picture of evolution. Just because individual cases of whether something is true or not with its dating and placement in the fossil records isn't going to prove or disprove evolution as a whole.

Secondly I agree that scientists do a lot of great work but I dont necessarily agree that their views can be automatically trusted. They are still human beings and when it comes to subjects like evolution and climate change especially there is a lot of vested interests. There is also a lot of vested interests in medicines for grants which can sway things. Sometimes it can also be about status and reputation more than what is truth is. Recent discoveries have found a great deal of shoddy work and even false claims made with peer reviewed papers.

So this is showing that just because they are scientists and they claim to have a system that is held up high as the be all and end all doesn't mean it is. We are talking about humans here who can be influenced no matter who they are to not always do the right thing. But apart from that with the subject of evolution there is a lot of views which appose each other from scientists themselves. More recent discoveries especially in genetics is casting some doubt on the Darwinian evolution theory. So I still think its early days to be saying that Darwinian evolution is a fact.

What you have posted as "evidence" for your position does not support your claim. "Ghost species" exist, but that does not in any way count as evidence against the theory of evolution.

Ghosts lineages on their own dont amount to all the evidence. This is only a part of the evidence. The fact that they have come up with things like that and convergent evolution and living fossils, out of place fossils and all the other things is because of the contradictory things that have occurred. Genetic evidence is also showing a lot of incongruence with the fossil record and tree of life Darwin made. So that along with things like ghost linage more or less go together. Ghost linage were made because things didn't line up in the right place for what evolution predicted. The genetic evidence that is coming out now is supporting what they suspected. The same with modern creatures like birds found with dinos. Evolutionists dont want to acknowledge this.

When they found soft tissue in Dino bones it was the same and they came up with reasons. But when you add them together with all the evidence we have always been seeing like the ancient painting of dinos and natives together it all starts to add up. This evidence is coming out bit by bit showing that what evolution said maybe wrong and wasn't necessarily based on all the facts. Its the same for how they are sequencing the genome with programs like ENCODE. They use to say 95% of the genome was junk. Now they are finding much more function which is changing everything. So all these pieces of evidences put together begin to cast doubt at the very least.

 

[AV1611VET]

For some reason the quote button isn't working properly so I have had to copy and paste myself.

Is it coming up with a blank page?

I get that every so often, myself.

 

[Split Rock]

[FONT=&quot]There are completely modern looking animals in allegedly ancient geologic layers in places that are definitely NOT supposed to be in.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] If dinosaurs evolved into birds, then the dinosaurs would come first in the fossil record, in deeper layers than the birds.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Even Scientific American admits that birds lived alongside dinosaurs (Dyke, 2010).[/FONT]
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs - Scientific American
[FONT=&quot]A complete skeleton of a giant penguin was recently found in the tropics of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Peru[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that is said to be 36 million years old. The skull is here compared to the skull of the only penguin living in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Peru[/FONT][FONT=&quot] today along with an artists rendition of this 5 foot tall creature. There are no fewer than 17 species of penguins living today and scientists recognize approximately 32 species that have become extinct. Evolutionists claim that penguins probably evolved from flying birds 40 million years ago but the evidence supports the fact that penguins have always been penguins, although many species within the penguin "kind" have become extinct.
[/FONT]
Different names for the same animal? [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Carl related how evolutionary scientists give fossils different genus and species names from the living forms, creating the illusion of evolution: “Let me give you an example. A scientist found a fossil sea urchin in Cretaceous rock that looks nearly identical to a modern Purple Heart sea urchin, but assigned it to a completely new genus (Holaster). If you saw that creature alive in the ocean you would recognize it as a Purple Heart sea urchin (genus Spatangus). The different name suggests that sea urchins have changed over time, but this is contrived ‘evidence’ for evolution. The fossil looks the same as the living one.” (See photos right[/FONT][FONT=&quot])

[/FONT]

[SIZE=+1]Shrimp: Supposedly 220 million years old.

[SIZE=+1] Lobster [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Dragonfly [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Horseshoe Crab [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Jelly Fish [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Nautilus [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] Sea Horse [/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

Are you claiming the pictures you are showing are the same species? They are not. Yes, shrimp of the past look very similar to modern shrimp. So do lobsters and sharks, etc. Yet, strangely enough you won't find anything like them in the Cambrian layers. There is also such a thing as Stabilizing Selection. If a population is under selection to remain the same, there will only be minor phenotypic changes over time.

 

[Loudmouth]

For being convincing in order to be part of this collection of transitional forms a fossil will need any features that fit it in a sequence with fossils of others to which it is being shown to be related with smooth transitions showing the evolution.to newer kinds.

How do you know which fossils belong in this sequence of fossils?

Also, why does it have to be a smooth transition? Why can't a single fossil be transitional? Also, how have you determined that the geologic record is capable of capturing every single step in the chain at a rate high enough that we would discover them? You are assuming a perfect geologic record, which we don't have.

This would be in place of assuming the evolution between them connecting them where there aren't fossils to show it.

No assumption of evolution needs to be made in order to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. That is what you are failing to understand. A fossil that has a mixture of mammal and bird features would be a transitional, AND IT WOULD FALSIFY EVOLUTION. The mixture of features in fossils are used to test the theory.

There isn't expectation of transition from birds to mammals because there are not all the same designs that they are based on as there are from some reptiles and some mammals.

How so? Reptiles are as much the same design as birds are. In fact, reptiles and birds share features that reptiles and humans do not share, such as egg laying and a cloaca.

This shows evolution to you, and many others that will not consider God to be involved in that. But this shows creation of kinds from common design from the Creator for those of us that will see it.

Why would common desgn produce a nested hierarchy? Until you answer this question, you have no business telling us what we should or shouldn't believe. Until you can tell us the criteria we should use to determine if a fossil is transitional, you have no voice in the conversation.

With just representatives that themselves may not provide the descent, with it guessed that there were some others that did, leaves guesswork in-beween with evolution still assumed.

Evolution is not assumed. You don't have to assume evolution in order to conclude that Australopithecines have a combination of basal ape and modern human features.

God will have his own purposes of working with a pattern of working with common bases of design, however we interpret it.

Why do we see a nested hierarchy?

 

[RickG]

Is it coming up with a blank page?

I get that every so often, myself.

Same here. Frustrating to say the least.

 

[Loudmouth]

I wouldn't have a clue who he is and that doesn't change the point. The point is that there are issues with the naming of taxa and whether they are new species or just varieties of the same species.

None of the proposed hominid transitionals are varieties of modern humans, nor do any modern humans look like those fossils. That is what you keep ignoring in every post.

Name them whatever you like. A rose by any other name will smell as sweet. These fossils have a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. It is those features that make them transitional, not a name that someone gives them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Same here. Frustrating to say the least.

It is.

Especially when I go to edit something I said, and a blank page comes up.

 

[FredVB]

There is no such thing as common design.

It would then be your own perspective that there isn't. With there being the Creator there are designs used, with those used with variation on a number of kinds. To say there is no Creator, which is the reason to say there isn't such design common to being used on more than one kind, is still a perspective, for which I already have been showing in communication that there isn't evidence, and there is good logic for seeing there is the Creator using designs. Seeing design in what there is would not be so incredible for us as having everything there is, with knowledge of all things that we acquire, and our great aspirations, from processes with nothing purposed that happen only from nature, with no valid explanation for anything being here, with dismissal of there being necessary existence.

How do you know which fossils belong in this sequence of fossils?
Also, why does it have to be a smooth transition? Why can't a single fossil be transitional?
Why would common desgn produce a nested hierarchy? Until you answer this question, you have no business telling us what we should or shouldn't believe.

We who don't see atheistic evolution as an explanation don't have to come up with which fossils belong in a sequence, but we can view your arrangement and consider it with critical examination. When kinds of fossils are not so close to show direct descent, there should be some cases of showing all the transition in a smooth sequence, or else if there is no case of it known from fossils the evolution is assumed. Sure, you are free to do that. But requiring it of others?

The nested hierarchy is from your perspective with your assumptions. Why should this coming from design that the Creator would work with be denied? I can ask, because I could always see how it worked that way. I saw it if you must use the word as an evolution of design, seeing it is without evolution by descent needed. It is not work that is too great for the All-powerful one.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would then be your own perspective that there isn't. With there being the Creator there are designs used, with those used with variation on a number of kinds.

Why do those kinds fall into a nested hierarchy when common design can produce so many other patterns of homology? Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Computers don't fall into a nested hierarchy. All of those groups have common design, and yet no nested hierarchy. So why would life need to fall into a nested hierarchy? Why would a common designer expend all of that extra effort into forcing life into a nested hierarchy when such effort isn't needed?

To say there is no Creator, which is the reason to say there isn't such design common to being used on more than one kind, is still a perspective, for which I already have been showing in communication that there isn't evidence, and there is good logic for seeing there is the Creator using designs. Seeing design in what there is would not be so incredible for us as having everything there is, with knowledge of all things that we acquire, and our great aspirations, from processes with nothing purposed that happen only from nature, with no valid explanation for anything being here, with dismissal of there being necessary existence.

What we are asking is why a Creator would go to all of that extra effort just to make it look like evolution.

 

[stevevw]

None of the proposed hominid transitionals are varieties of modern humans, nor do any modern humans look like those fossils. That is what you keep ignoring in every post.

Name them whatever you like. A rose by any other name will smell as sweet. These fossils have a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. It is those features that make them transitional, not a name that someone gives them.

The problem is we dont really know of the vast variety of shapes humans had in the past just be nature. If you look at many different natives, Chinese, Mongolians, some of the stronger featured Turks, middle eastern and some in the Baltic and Russian countries you can see a large variety of strong features. They cover all the ranges at least seen with fossils that are attributed to Neanderthals and homo erectus. There is research data that is showing that the genetics of modern humans and ancient humans like Neanderthals and homo erectus have many similarities.

In fact some have said we cross bred at one stage with Neanderthals. Other research says that all these species are really the one species. So it could be that all the more modern hominids and homo sapiens are just the one species with great variety throughout their history. Like I said evolutionists have a history of making what is variety within a species into a new species. There is a large gap between these and the more ape like creatures such as the australopithecine. So maybe all those are just great varieties of apes. With all the natural variety of different shapes and features which occur within each kind of ape and human and their different breeds it would be easy to mistake a feature which is just a variation that extends towards the other for a transitional feature.

The trouble is evolutionists pick out one or two features and focus on them. But they are not enough to account for the vast amount of changes needed to transform an ape into a human. Evolutionists have made this mistake many times before by using observational evidence. Its all comes down to interpretation and is often disputed and debated even among evolutionists. Its to hit and miss and also has many contradictory results which they tend to overlook. There will have to be a lot more research done before any firm conclusions can be made. But judging things on looks and personal interpretations is not enough. Perhaps the ENCODE research may produce some more results which will give us some more info. Afterall the best way to truly determine things is by the genetic info rather than a how it looks to the eye and a persons personal view which can be biased.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is we dont really know of the vast variety of shapes humans had in the past just be nature. If you look at many different natives, Chinese, Mongolians, some of the stronger featured Turks, middle eastern and some in the Baltic and Russian countries you can see a large variety of strong features. They cover all the ranges at least seen with fossils that are attributed to Neanderthals and homo erectus.

No, they don't. No modern human, be they Chinese or Russian, cover the variation seen in H. erectus. None.

No modern human has ever been found 1.5 million year old sediments where H. erectus is found. No hominid fossil found in sediments from 5 million to 1 million years before present are modern humans.

There is research data that is showing that the genetics of modern humans and ancient humans like Neanderthals and homo erectus have many similarities.

Of course we have similarities. We share a common ancestor. That's the whole point.

In fact some have said we cross bred at one stage with Neanderthals.

There is evidence for LIMITED cross breeding. How do you think they can determine the amount of cross breeding?

Other research says that all these species are really the one species.

What research?

So it could be that all the more modern hominids and homo sapiens are just the one species with great variety throughout their history. [/qutoe]

Then why can't we find modern humans in 2 million year old sediments?

Like I said evolutionists have a history of making what is variety within a species into a new species. There is a large gap between these and the more ape like creatures such as the australopithecine.

When that gap is filled, you will pronounce that there are now two more gaps. We know how this game is played.

The very fact that you say there are gaps is proof of their transitional status. If they weren't transitional, then there wouldn't be gaps on either side of them.

So maybe all those are just great varieties of apes. With all the natural variety of different shapes and features which occur within each kind of ape and human and their different breeds it would be easy to mistake a feature which is just a variation that extends towards the other for a transitional feature.

Humans and chimps are varieties of apes. We are also separate species.

The trouble is evolutionists pick out one or two features and focus on them. But they are not enough to account for the vast amount of changes needed to transform an ape into a human.

We need more than your assertions.

Its all comes down to interpretation and is often disputed and debated even among evolutionists.

The problem is that you never address the interpretations. You misrepresent the interpretations, and then attack your strawman.

Perhaps the ENCODE research may produce some more results which will give us some more info. Afterall the best way to truly determine things is by the genetic info rather than a how it looks to the eye and a persons personal view which can be biased.

IOW, you don't use the fossil evidence. Thanks for playing.

 

[FredVB]

So far there aren't fossils found that I see that would be so compelling in displaying certain transition between kinds to draw me back to thinking it would only be from evolution by descent.

We who don't see atheistic evolution as an explanation don't have to come up with which fossils belong in a sequence, but we can view your arrangement and consider it with critical examination. When kinds of fossils are not so close to show direct descent, there should be some cases of showing all the transition in a smooth sequence, or else if there is no case of it known from fossils the evolution is assumed. Sure, you are free to do that. But requiring it of others?

The nested hierarchy is from perspective with assumptions. Why should this coming from design that the Creator would work with be denied? I can ask, because I could always see how it worked that way. I saw it if you must use the word as an evolution of design, seeing it is without evolutionary descent needed. It is not work that is too great for the All-powerful one.