Seeing fossils without the Evolution goggles

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

"The Evolution of different life on earth is a story that could be told in many highly contrasting ways. Evolution is really more of an open ended genre than a specific account of how life supposedly evolved."

Tell it whichever way one wishes. There is, however, the way it actually did happen in space time.

Until the advent of modern biochemistry and modern developments in information technology especially implicating DNA, RNA, etc, Genesis 1-3 technically had its challenges.

No more. I expand on this on-line and via hard copy. See Creationtheory dot com .

Genesis states in black and white that all simple or plant grade life existed before it became tangible on Earth. And although it was all made on Day 3, the really modern aspects of it such as the flowering plants only feature Day 6. They existed, yet they were 'let' be brought forth. Not limited to Day 3. We have an even more startling account of complex or animal grade life. It was created [a signal, momentous act in the Hebrew] Day 5, and those parts of complex life, already existing, which were land dwellers were formed out of the ground [a comparatively minor act, Hebrew] formed of earth, Day 6. Although they already existed in an absolute sense.

Method? In simplest terms, information technology. Which of course was anything but simple. As anyone who has the humility to own, alongside the psalmist, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made." We are not talking about Windows and Bill Gates -- although we may get an inkling from our simple home computers.

Immediately preceding the creation of complex life we have:

Genesis 1:14. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”

Major purpose of the heavenly bodies, and the sun-earth -moon especially? Signs. Signals unit, accompanying the troops so to speak. Intelligence gathering, processing, storage and transmission. Even the Earth itself as a planet was and in some way is involved.

Psalm 139:14-16
"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Not only the Earth, but the sun also is heavily involved. The moon will be involved but probably through gravitational effects on the Earth assisting maintenance of the magnetic field or some such hidden effect.

Psalm 19:1-5
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race."

It's all over bar digging into a huge new field of research/discovery. Yes, environment is governed by the solar system, and species were transformed by information input which did accommodate some environmental demands. As for the transformation of species which enabled already existing species to be 'let' 'brought forth' in time -- Species existed as pre-existing information destined to be automatically transmitted at the pre-destined time. The 'species lock' was tripped, presumably through something like an information engineered momentary return to asexual reproduction. Simultaneously, DNA etc. were re-programmed. Species largely equal DNA, their information blueprint. Human technology goes close to it with non-sexually produced offspring that are not offspring -- try 'Dolly' the sheep clone, etc.. There is a hint about asexual (non-common descent) species transformation in Genesis itself. Eve was Adam's 'daughter' by asexual reproduction of a divine methodology. That species were transformed is certain. The Old Testament is a pattern or in a sense a picture book. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature/creation [species, may be utilized in place of creature]."

The geologic record combined with biotechnology and what is known as quantum physics, end the head scratching. Leave plenty of scope for more head scratching?

 

[pitabread]

You have to do a little more than just make assertions. Reading and responding to arguments in the OP is a good starting place.

But all your OP is is a bunch of unsupported assertions. You're not making an argument.

Your OP also completely ignores the fact that biological evolution isn't just supported by the fossil record, but multitudes of other lines of evidence which all converge on the same conclusion.

 

[pitabread]

Not only is the OP itself flawed, but evolution is inferred from the consistent and coherent patterns of multiple independent lines of evidence, not assumed. It has explanatory power, makes fruitful predictons, has been extensively tested for over 100 years, unifies disparate fields of knowledge, has practical and commercial applications - even outside biology - and its application the epidemiology of bacterial & viral diseases has saved millions of lives. Wishful thinking isn't going to change all that.

^ This x 100.

 

[lifepsyop]

Flatly, no.

You could not randomize the order of the fossils and then apply the ToE as it exists today and have it work. It wouldn't. It would be falsified in its current form.

That's the whole point. You either did not read or you didn't understand the argument.

A visual aid should be helpful.

In Darwin's time, while the overall image of the fossil record was blurry and lacked resolution, the basic pattern and structure was well established. (small marine creatures at the bottom, an "age of reptiles" in the middle, and bigger mammals on top) ... Since then there has been an increasing resolution of that image.

More fundamentally speaking, this is just a simple matter of logic. One cannot possibly predict *how* Evolution might have worked on the history of a planet... Whose to say that drastically varied environmental pressures might not have produced mammals before dinosaurs? It's impossible to predict.

So all that's really taken place is a fining-up of resolution of the pattern of fossils.

This is why the original low-resolution image of the fossil record could have been practically anything, and a corresponding evolutionary story could have been written to try and explain it.

This is not complicated and I've made it very simple to understand, so there should be no more confusion.

 

[lifepsyop]

Your OP also completely ignores the fact that biological evolution isn't just supported by the fossil record, but multitudes of other lines of evidence which all converge on the same conclusion.

You seem eager to change the subject.

 

[Arc F1]

Nobody is assuming evolution--that's not how the scientific method works. Evolution is the theory explaining the facts. And, just to preempt any misunderstanding--a theory is not another work for hypothesis. Much like the Germ Theory or the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution is as established a fact as you will find in science.

I see that along with all the other definitions changing the word "fact" must have changed also.

 

[lifepsyop]

I mean, you'd be talking about all other fossil series showing a continuously diversifying, branching tree of life and then over here are birds with feathers and an incredible amount of diversity shrinking down to a handful of therapod species that no longer exist, but all these birds still exist. That wouldn't make any sense. We would have to be living in a much different world than we currently observe and the theory would reflect that.

I'm not sure how well you understand the theory of Evolution. There are explanations for the types of issues you raise. They aren't really problems for the theory.

This might help:
Lazarus taxon - Wikipedia

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That's the whole point. You either did not read or you didn't understand the argument.

A visual aid should be helpful.

In Darwin's time, while the overall image of the fossil record was blurry and lacked resolution, the basic pattern and structure was well established. (small marine creatures at the bottom, an "age of reptiles" in the middle, and bigger mammals on top) ... Since then there has been an increasing resolution of that image.

More fundamentally speaking, this is just a simple matter of logic. One cannot possibly predict *how* Evolution might have worked on the history of a planet... Whose to say that drastically varied environmental pressures might not have produced mammals before dinosaurs? It's impossible to predict.

So all that's really taken place is a fining-up of resolution of the pattern of fossils.

This is why the original low-resolution image of the fossil record could have been practically anything, and a corresponding evolutionary story could have been written to try and explain it.

This is not complicated and I've made it very simple to understand, so there should be no more confusion.

Simplifying a stupid argument doesn't make it any less stupid.

The theory of evolution was built on the observations. If the observations had been different then the theory would be different. What you're describing is the way creationism works where the ideology is codified from on high and everything must fit within that view or it's wrong even if the observed reality contradicts it.

 

[durangodawood]

I cant believe in this day and age people are still tilting against evolution.

People must have wedded their very identity to biblical literalism for them to be carrying on like this.

 

[pitabread]

You seem eager to change the subject.

It's not changing the subject at all. It's just pointing out the flaw in your OP.

If interpretation of the fossil record was as arbitrary as you seem to think it is, then we wouldn't expect concordance from other lines of evidence (particular genetics). Yet those other lines of evidence have generally confirmed the patterns we observe in nature and in fossils.

Being ignorant of that fact doesn't change it.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I'm not sure how well you understand the theory of Evolution. There are explanations for the types of issues you raise. They aren't really problems for the theory.

This might help:
Lazarus taxon - Wikipedia

That's just a gap in the fossil record. And, yeah the theory would need to explain that. What that wiki presents are hypotheses that might explain the observations. With more data those hypotheses will either be confirmed or scrapped and new ideas would need to be formulated to explain it. That's how it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cant believe in this day and age people are still tilting against evolution.

People must have wedded their very identity to biblical literalism for them to be carrying on like this.

Think of it this way. There are still Flat Earth believers out there. Creationism on meth. If they exist a larger number of slightly more reasonable people should exist too.

 

[durangodawood]

Think of it this way. There are still Flat Earth believers out there. Creationism on meth. If they exist a larger number of slightly more reasonable people should exist too.

The Bible also describes an obviously mythical spatial cosmology. Most literalists have selectively acknowledged that. But they cant acknowledge the obviously mythical origin of life story - probably because of its implications for what humans are.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I bet if you scrambled all the names and dates in the census records, genealogists would come up with different family trees.

But here in the real world, the real data leads to developing genealogies that approximate reality.

 

[lifepsyop]

The theory of evolution was built on the observations. If the observations had been different then the theory would be different.

Exactly. Thank you.

Whatever the fossil data was, we were always going to get an evolutionary story about it.

Fossilized animal orders could be randomly shifted around in the rock layers, and you could still build a theory of evolution up around it. The idea of Evolution is flexible enough to adapt to whatever paleontological environment it encounters.

 

[pitabread]

Exactly. Thank you.

Whatever the fossil data was, we were always going to get an evolutionary story about it.

That's not what they said.

 

[lifepsyop]

I bet if you scrambled all the names and dates in the census records, genealogists would come up with different family trees.

Yes, but it would be a lot more difficult to find acceptance with a mass audience if Evolution were described that accurately.

"Hey you know that fossil order record we've been preaching for decades as knock-out proof of universal common ancestry? Well... to tell the truth.... it could have been scrambled totally different and we'd still tell you it was proof of Evolution..."

It's like a used car salesman admitting that he would have tried to sell you his car no matter what quality it was in. The truth can be harmful to customer relations.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, but it would be a lot more difficult to find acceptance with a mass audience if Evolution were described that accurately.

"Hey you know that fossil order record we've been preaching for decades as knock-out proof of universal common ancestry? Well... to tell the truth.... it could have been scrambled totally different and we'd still tell you it was proof of Evolution..."

It's like a used car salesman admitting that he would have tried to sell you his car no matter what quality it was in. The truth can be harmful to customer relations.

I think you are more like a used-car salesman. That "quote" in your post is an intentional misrepresentation of evolution.

What's your purpose here, really?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Exactly. Thank you.

Whatever the fossil data was, we were always going to get an evolutionary story about it.

Fossilized animal orders could be randomly shifted around in the rock layers, and you could still build a theory of evolution up around it. The idea of Evolution is flexible enough to adapt to whatever paleontological environment it encounters.

I think I see it now. You're not railing against The Theory of Evolution. You're railing against naturalism. Don't know what to tell you there. Offer some evidence of divine intervention in the fossil record like, idk, scorch marks or lightening etching on fossil bones or "YAHWEH" spelled out in the DNA or something. The theory does what it does and is logical and consistent with what we observe which does not indicate anything other than natural causes and processes. That it doesn't take into account your personal superstitious beliefs is your problem that you, as a creationist need to figure out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. Thank you.

Whatever the fossil data was, we were always going to get an evolutionary story about it.

Fossilized animal orders could be randomly shifted around in the rock layers, and you could still build a theory of evolution up around it. The idea of Evolution is flexible enough to adapt to whatever paleontological environment it encounters.

No, we have an evolutionary interpretation of it because that is the only one supported by the evidence.

No one is stopping the creationists from making their own testable hypothesis that explains the observations. They will not form one. Do you know why? Because they are not idiots. They know that their hypotheses have been shown to be wrong in the past and they do not want to be embarrassed again.

Forming a hypothesis and testing it is how science is done. It is a very low bar and creationists cannot even get over that one. As a result they have no scientific evidence for their beliefs and it is their fault and their fault alone.

And why concentrate on the fossil record? Yes, it supports evolution, but that is merely because it is a fact just as gravity is a fact. It is the most obvious evidence to amateurs, but it is not the strongest evidence. There are multiple independent lines of evidence for evolution and no scientific evidence for anything else. Denying evolution at this point in time is no different than denying gravity.