The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[Jimmy D]

Like the Cambrian explosion?

That's right.

 

[Valetic]

That's right.

If there was no flood how does that help the theory of evolution? I personally think that it only hurts it because you don't find any deeper layers in the geologic column that have less and less diversity of kinds of specimens until you find a layer there are only few or one.. There is variety from top to bottom of it..

How would you rebut that statement?

 

[pitabread]

The funny part is where evolutionists demand creationists prove the biological boundaries exist, while simultaneously demanding acceptance (without any proof) that NO boundaries exist....

Because there is no evidence there are any ancestral boundaries between organisms and certainly nothing pointing to dependent creation.

There certainly are biological limits to evolution, but that would be strictly with respect to viable biological forms. But within the span of viable biological forms, the possibilities seem quite vast. Just look at the current diversity of life on Earth with an estimated ~10 million or so species on the planet, plus all of the genetic variations within those species, plus all of the extinct biological forms on top of that.

Thus the onus is firmly on creationists to demonstrate whereby such a boundary exists preventing evolutionary change beyond a certain limit. Given that no creationist has ever done this, I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

To an evolutionist, the default 'reasonable' position is that nature has the intrinsic power to organize the same common substance into both a mushroom and a horse. How this magical-thinking is regarded as common wisdom today is truly astounding.

Let's see:

1) We know all life on Earth is made of the same organic compounds;
2) We know that organisms reproduce and change over time; and,
3) The patterns we observe in genomes of extant species, biodiversity, and historical record of life on Earth all point to an evolutionary ancestry.

If you want to argue otherwise then you'll have to bring something to the table. You can start by demonstrating where the biological limits of evolutionary change lie, how one would demonstrate ancestral discontinuity between extant species, and how one would classify organisms accordingly.

Good luck.

 

[Valetic]

Because there is no evidence there are any ancestral boundaries between organisms and certainly nothing pointing to dependent creation.

There certainly are biological limits to evolution, but that would be strictly with respect to viable biological forms. But within the span of viable biological forms, the possibilities seem quite vast. Just look at the current diversity of life on Earth with an estimated ~10 million or so species on the planet, plus all of the genetic variations within those species, plus all of the extinct biological forms on top of that.

Thus the onus is firmly on creationists to demonstrate whereby such a boundary exists preventing evolutionary change beyond a certain limit. Given that no creationist has ever done this, I'm not sure what you are complaining about.



Let's see:

1) We know all life on Earth is made of the same organic compounds;
2) We know that organisms reproduce and change over time; and,
3) The patterns we observe in genomes of extant species, biodiversity, and historical record of life on Earth all point to an evolutionary ancestry.

If you want to argue otherwise then you'll have to bring something to the table. You can start by demonstrating where the biological limits of evolutionary change lie, how one would demonstrate ancestral discontinuity between extant species, and how one would classify organisms accordingly.

Good luck.

I'm no expert but if I had to guess then it's probably coded somewhere in the DNA, at least when it comes to the reproduction of such. To me it would be the equivalent of trying to put a cube in a round hole.

 

[Jimmy D]

If there was no flood how does that help the theory of evolution?

Ancient mythology is irrelevant to modern scientific knowledge as far as I'm aware.

I personally think that it only hurts it because you don't find any deeper layers in the geologic column that have less and less diversity of kinds of specimens until you find a layer there are only few or one.. There is variety from top to bottom of it..

How would you rebut that statement?

As far as I know your statement is factually incorrect as there is fossil evidence of life preceding the Cambrian explosion.

I would respectfully point you towards literature dealing with the Cambrian and preceding periods.

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion

http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php

 

[Valetic]

As far as I know your statement is factually incorrect as there is fossil evidence of life preceding the Cambrian explosion.

Not much of life. Stromatolites generally make up pre-cambrian fossils and not much sign of bigger life forms and then BOOM Cambrian layer happens and there is life in variety that seemed to have skipped time.

There were bacteria and sponges and odd things pre Cambrian and then something evolved but it wasn't just one thing it was more than one because by the time the Cambrian era rolls around there is a good variety of stuff that wouldn't have had time to naturally mutate and evolve and reproduce and speciate and spread and speciate enough by the time the Cambrian layer hits..

Just by observing the fossil record..

 

[lifepsyop]

Because there is no evidence there are any ancestral boundaries between organisms.

Uh huh, sure... Just like there's no evidence of any boundaries between inanimate stardust and living creatures, right?

 

[pitabread]

Uh huh, sure... Just like there's no evidence of any boundaries between inanimate stardust and living creatures, right?

If think there is a boundary, then present it. What is it? What is the discontinuity that divides extant organisms?

So far creationists keep claiming one exists but are never able to identify what it is.. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

If think there is a boundary, then present it. What is it? What is the discontinuity that divides extant organisms?

So far creationists keep claiming one exists but are never able to identify what it is.. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Not at all.

God is a God of boundaries ...

Psalm 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

... and He set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

What that exact boundary is, I don't know.

But I can speculate:

1. time
2. sterility
3. something in (or not in) our DNA
4. all the above

 

[Job 33:6]

If there was no flood how does that help the theory of evolution? I personally think that it only hurts it because you don't find any deeper layers in the geologic column that have less and less diversity of kinds of specimens until you find a layer there are only few or one.. There is variety from top to bottom of it..

How would you rebut that statement?

We actually do find less derivation in lower strata of the geologic column. I e we don't find mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians in the Cambrian.

Prior to the Cambrian we only have things like microshellies and soft bodied life forms

 

[AV1611VET]

We actually do find less derivation in lower strata of the geologic column. I e we don't find mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians in the Cambrian.

Prior to the Cambrian we only have things like microshellies and soft bodied life forms

My advice would be to keep looking.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Mixed_onions.jpg/220px-Mixed_onions.jpg

Onions and horses, and other onions. Onion. Read the article, look at the pictures, think about what we decide is an onion, and what is not an onion. Perceived linkage is utterly arbitrary.

Horses didn't evolve from onions so what are you asking for? Are you asking for fossils of a plant and animal common ancestor?

 

[lifepsyop]

If think there is a boundary, then present it. What is it? What is the discontinuity that divides extant organisms?

I believe I already answered you. Life may be divided by separate ancestry. That part is not complicated at all. Could or could not the origin of separate ancestral groups create actual boundaries between life?

So far creationists keep claiming one exists but are never able to identify what it is.. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

No more odd than your inability to identify an actual (not hypothesized) morphological/molecular gradation between any major animal groups. Just gaps in the theory, right? Science is still working on it.

From what I understand, there's been plenty of creationist arguments and proposals for likely division of kinds based on animal characteristics. (such as baraminology) Can they demonstrate ironclad proof that these are indeed the original kinds? No, it's just a theory.

On that note, I'm reminded how amusing it is that Evolutionists always hold Creationists to a much higher standard then Evolutionists hold themselves. Creationists must always demonstrate airtight, ironclad proof for everything, and their reasoning or hypotheses are disregarded as irrelevant. Meanwhile Evolutionary narratives have always flooated on an ocean of storytelling and theoretical imagineering... but of course it's okay when the Evolutionists do it... it's just that "the science is still working on it". Amusing isn't it?

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe I already answered you. Life may be divided by separate ancestry. That part is not complicated at all. Could or could not the origin of separate ancestral groups create actual boundaries between life?



No more odd than your inability to identify an actual (not hypothesized) morphological/molecular gradation between any major animal groups. Just gaps in the theory, right? Science is still working on it.

From what I understand, there's been plenty of creationist arguments and proposals for likely division of kinds based on animal characteristics. (such as baraminology) Can they demonstrate ironclad proof that these are indeed the original kinds? No, it's just a theory.

On that note, I'm reminded how amusing it is that Evolutionists always hold Creationists to a much higher standard then Evolutionists hold themselves. Creationists must always demonstrate airtight, ironclad proof for everything, and their reasoning or hypotheses are disregarded as irrelevant. Meanwhile Evolutionary narratives have always flooated on an ocean of storytelling and theoretical imagineering... but of course it's okay when the Evolutionists do it... it's just that "the science is still working on it". Amusing isn't it?

You mentioned transitionals between major groups. That's why I brought up tiktaalik to show that such transitions do exist.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not much of life. Stromatolites generally make up pre-cambrian fossils and not much sign of bigger life forms and then BOOM Cambrian layer happens and there is life in variety that seemed to have skipped time.

There were bacteria and sponges and odd things pre Cambrian and then something evolved but it wasn't just one thing it was more than one because by the time the Cambrian era rolls around there is a good variety of stuff that wouldn't have had time to naturally mutate and evolve and reproduce and speciate and spread and speciate enough by the time the Cambrian layer hits..

Just by observing the fossil record..

Actually the explosion spans some 50 million years and actually the dominant spike in the appearance of various forms of life is predated by arthropod trace fossils, sponges, brachiopods, anabarites, archaeocyathans, micro shelled life, invertebrate burrows and more. The reason the "boom" appears is because life evolved shells which results in the appearance of fossils .But before the boom there were things like foot prints, so we know that complex life existed, they were just soft bodied. Which is why cambrian lagerstaaten is popular.

 

[Chesterton]

All animals have bones, but you wouldn't call a giraffe by the name of a frog just because they both have bones.

Regarding tiktaalik, you should do research on the topic before picking a side.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

The second video is a bit long, but honestly, if you are truly interested in having an honest conversation about fossils, if you aren't familiar with the science, you should invest the time to watch.

I know what a tiktaalik is. Honestly, I don't have an hour to spare on something I'm marginally interested in. Would it be possible for you to summarize what you would like me to know from those videos?

Horses didn't evolve from onions so what are you asking for? Are you asking for fossils of a plant and animal common ancestor?

Horses evolved from single-celled organisms, but I thought I'd jump ahead to a plant to save you a few eons worth of work.

 

[Job 33:6]

I know what a tiktaalik is. Honestly, I don't have an hour to spare on something I'm marginally interested in. Would it be possible for you to summarize what you would like me to know from those videos?


Horses evolved from single-celled organisms, but I thought I'd jump ahead to a plant to save you a few eons worth of work.

People seem to be suggesting that transitionals between major groups of organisms, do not exist. I've simply presented tiktaalik to demonstrate that transitional fossils between major groups, do exist. We have fish in the early devonian, tetrapods in the late devonian and tiktaalik in the middle. Tiktaalik could have been in the silurian or ordovician or Cambrian. But that's not where it was. It was found where evolution predicted it to be.

The fossil succession exists and transitionals between major groups exist. That is all that I was pointing out. And it's not about assuming anything. Either the transitional fossil is there or it's not. And not only that but it's also important to note where the transitional fossil is and where it is not.

Also you asked who discovered tiktaalik and who predicted it's location, so I gave you a video all about how it's location and depth was predicted via the theory of evolution.

If you want to know the answer, just watch the video. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

 

[Job 33:6]

I know what a tiktaalik is. Honestly, I don't have an hour to spare on something I'm marginally interested in. Would it be possible for you to summarize what you would like me to know from those videos?


Horses evolved from single-celled organisms, but I thought I'd jump ahead to a plant to save you a few eons worth of work.

So what are you asking for? Are you asking for fossils of a common ancestor between unions and horses?

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually the explosion spans some 50 million years and actually the dominant spike in the appearance of various forms of life is predated by arthropod trace fossils, sponges, brachiopods, anabarites, archaeocyathans, micro shelled life, invertebrate burrows and more. The reason the "boom" appears is because life evolved shells which results in the appearance of fossils .But before the boom there were things like foot prints, so we know that complex life existed, they were just soft bodied. Which is why cambrian lagerstaaten is popular.

I'll just quote myself here. Really the Cambrian explosion I think is maybe a misnomer. Creationists hop on it thinking that a ton of life just appeared out of thin air. But really, life was diversifying tens of millions of years before hand and there really are a good deal of fossils from various forms of life that predate the explosion, such as those noted in my post above. The fact that we have soft bodied arthropod lagerstaaten and arthropod trace fossils predating the explosion, alone is enough to show that life didn't simply appear out of thin air in an instant.

Beyond this, biologists seem to suggest that speciation occurs on the order of tens of thousands to 1 or 200 thousand years, not taking into account environmental stresses and evolutionary arms races. So if the Cambrian explosion spans tens of millions of years, there is no question that biological evolution is an acceptable explanation for what we, the geologists and paleontologists see.

 

[Chesterton]

People seem to be suggesting that transitionals between major groups of organisms, do not exist. I've simply presented tiktaalik to demonstrate that transitional fossils between major groups, do exist. We have fish in the early devonian, tetrapods in the late devonian and tiktaalik in the middle. Tiktaalik could have been in the silurian or ordovician or Cambrian. But that's not where it was. It was found where evolution predicted it to be.

The fossil succession exists and transitionals between major groups exist. That is all that I was pointing out. And it's not about assuming anything. Either the transitional fossil is there or it's not. And not only that but it's also important to note where the transitional fossil is and where it is not.

Seems like you're shifting the goalposts by saying "between major groups".

Also you asked who discovered tiktaalik and who predicted it's location, so I gave you a video all about how it's location and depth was predicted via the theory of evolution.

No I don't think I asked either of those things, but I may have misunderstood your post. When I read what you said about prediction, I thought you were saying someone had actually predicted a tiktaalik, as they do in hard science like when Einstein predicted starlight bending around the eclipsed sun. After re-reading it I see you were using the word a bit more loosely. My bad.

If you want to know the answer, just watch the video. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I've already asked.

So what are you asking for? Are you asking for fossils of a common ancestor between unions and horses?

I'm asking for actual linkage between anything and anything else.