The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[dad]

That's an overtly simplified look at the homology of dogs. And yes, while it is fair to say that the human skull lineage is oversimplifying it, it makes the point pretty well. ..

If it is so simple, where in the pic list does actual man start?

 

[StormanNorman]

Hello StormanNorman,

If I recall correctly, BoneDigger over at the EFF forums showed you how some of that skull morphology data is highly ambiguous. Evolutionary paleontologists are known for exaggerating the conclusiveness of their interpretations in order to make them fit better within a preferred evolutionary model. "Whale evolution" is a good example of this.

Hi LP,

Not really. BD and I had a pretty good discussion about it. He picked one particular skull whose reconstruction has been debated (I forget the exact fossil descriptor). And, he's right that that particular fossil is ambiguous in its reconstruction and different scientists have come to different conclusions. But, that was it.

That some semblance of a trend in only particular traits is able to be extracted from the data does not surprise me, but at the same time, any features that do not show such a trend are simply ignored. There is a great deal of confirmation bias being imposed on the data to make a selected set of it seem more important than everything else. This is a common trap evolutionists fall into by obsessing so much over certain isolated body-parts to the exclusion of everything else. The "reptile-mammal jaw-bone transition" is another good example of this.

Let's not forget that if this human skull trend was instead disorder, evolutionists would simply assume the "brain capacity" trait was less informative about an evolutionary progression, or that the order of fossilization did not accurately reflect the order of evolution. So this can hardly be considered any test of evolution theory.

But, that's irrelevant, LP. The brain capacities do show a significant trend from smaller (600 cc) to larger (> 1,200 cc) in the last 2 million years. And, that's not the only significant trend, e.g., the teeth, slope of the face, brow ridges, etc. From a strictly objective perspective, one has to seriously consider the possibility that human/hominid populations have changed rather dramatically over time. There's really no way around it, LP.

 

[lifepsyop]

From a strictly objective perspective, one has to seriously consider the possibility that human/hominid populations have changed rather dramatically over time. There's really no way around it, LP.

I believe humans have changed dramatically over time from an original human population into our present state. Not only from the original creation, but from post-Flood population dispersal when men were still living to be hundreds of years old and probably looked quite different.

 

[crjmurray]

I don't have any problem with whales.... if you're referring to models of "whale evolution", here are a few interviews with the evolutionary paleontologists involved showing how they used ambiguous data or fabricated anatomical traits in order to push a more convincing picture of a fossil transitional sequence.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Evolutionists are faithfully convicted in their belief of how animals evolved so they are going to tend to impose those beliefs onto the data.

I'm not set up to watch YouTube videos. Explain the content.

 

[crjmurray]

Nothing at all, just problems with calling other Kinds whales too. Seems that happens about 2 of every 3 fossils really studied.

I emailed Jack Horner about that video. He didn't understand how that video had any bearing on evolution. Though he was happy that people were watching his videos at least.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, most of this amazing "phylogenetic signal" really does come down to that simple concept... similar morphologies have similar molecules. This cannot reasonably be advanced as a strong confirmation of Evolution, (though that claim is made by evolutionists constantly, of course).

And consistently forget to mention that every single thing that exists is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons as everything else. And nobody has a clue as to why they are different in rocks and animals - even if they are still exactly the same.

That similarities would be evident since they are all made of the dust, is nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is that that dust is also alive when in animals or plants, etc, etc.

The way evolutionists try and get around this is by using a teleological argument. They imply that because God could have designed similar morphologies with dissimilar molecules, but Evolution is more likely constrained to similar and similar, this then is stronger support for Evolution. Again, this argument is teleological as it implies how God would or wouldn't be constrained in the creation of life. The evolutionist needs to admit that he is using teleology to defend his theory and I wonder how "scientific" that is in the first place.

But even the teleological argument has a major flaw when we use known intelligent designers as reference. For instance, it is certainly true that the same functions of computer programs can be performed by entirely different computer coding structures. However, if we consider a single human designer, he will typically copy similar program functions by copying the same or similar underlying coding structure. Likewise, the single human designer will tend to leave consistent patterns of his coding 'style' throughout the program. This is the natural consistent behavior of designers. Thus "similar animals are similar" is also an expectation from a single designer of life.

Who even though he makes all types of different designs, uses the same building blocks to make them all. If it showed no aspect of design, then one would be inclined to contemplate evolution which is mutation by pure random chance. Although I do notice they elevate natural selection to just short of consciousness in it's almost calculating manner...

I don't know enough about plate tectonics theory to go into detail on it. But based on what you said, it would be totally irrational to claim the support of plate tectonics theory is based primarily on the relative position of continents... or that plate tectonics is a good theory because it could be falsified by Australia being part of North America. If the emerging plate tectonics theory could have accommodated those alternate findings then it would be silly to turn around and claim their absence as evidence.

Yet by analogy, the general order of the fossil record is usually the first thing evolutionists go running to as the strongest support for universal common descent, even though their theory could have accommodated countless other fossil orders.

We have found coral on mountaintops - so in reality have no idea of what the past continental placement was. Notice in their model all was once one continent - then they split into the ones we observe today - yet they were once not even continents - but ocean floor.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I emailed Jack Horner about that video. He didn't understand how that video had any bearing on evolution. Though he was happy that people were watching his videos at least.

What do you expect a fellow evolutionist to say? So you want us all to believe that he believes that 2 of every 3 dinosaurs were misclassified - evolution claims the fossil record supports evolution - and yet 2 of every 3 is just, well, wrong. And you don't think that affects evolution? Tell me it's just a joke because I certainly got a good laugh from it.

So you are telling me if I say the evidence supports me - and then it is shown that 2 of every 3 species I rely on in calculating my evolutionary tree was shown to be wrong - that does not affect my tree? Really? For some reason that just doesn't sound very scientific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I emailed Jack Horner about that video. He didn't understand how that video had any bearing on evolution. Though he was happy that people were watching his videos at least.

Who is Jack Horner? Was he the producer or what?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't have any problem with whales.... if you're referring to models of "whale evolution", here are a few interviews with the evolutionary paleontologists involved showing how they used ambiguous data or fabricated anatomical traits in order to push a more convincing picture of a fossil transitional sequence.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Evolutionists are faithfully convicted in their belief of how animals evolved so they are going to tend to impose those beliefs onto the data.

Here is a video showing 2 of every 3 of those are probably incorrect classification by one of those evolutionary paleontolgists as well.


How do you think they got evolution taught in the schools in the first place - by outright deception and fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who is Jack Horner? Was he the producer or what?

Says the evolutionist who apparently doesn't know his paleontology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist)

"He is one of the best-known paleontologists in the United States....

...Within the paleontological community, Horner is best known for his work on the cutting edge of dinosaur growth research....

...Horner has published more than 100 professional papers, six popular books"

So now suddenly he's a nobody? Lol, half the stuff you now believe is because of him, and you an evolutionists don't know who he is? I can believe that since most of you get all your education from blog sites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you expect a fellow evolutionist to say? So you want us all to believe that he believes that 2 of every 3 dinosaurs were misclassified - evolution claims the fossil record supports evolution - and yet 2 of every 3 is just, well, wrong. And you don't think that affects evolution? Tell me it's just a joke because I certainly got a good laugh from it.

So you are telling me if I say the evidence supports me - and then it is shown that 2 of every 3 species I rely on in calculating my evolutionary tree was shown to be wrong - that does not affect my tree? Really? For some reason that just doesn't sound very scientific.

I seriously doubt if you can justify that 2 out of 3 claim of yours. If I remember correctly you cherry picked the examples. Yes, some dinosaurs may have been misidentified. The last I remembered several of his claims had been refuted and Horner supported evolution anyway. It is a loss all the way around for you by referring to him.

 

[crjmurray]

What do you expect a fellow evolutionist to say? So you want us all to believe that he believes that 2 of every 3 dinosaurs were misclassified - evolution claims the fossil record supports evolution - and yet 2 of every 3 is just, well, wrong. And you don't think that affects evolution? Tell me it's just a joke because I certainly got a good laugh from it.

So you are telling me if I say the evidence supports me - and then it is shown that 2 of every 3 species I rely on in calculating my evolutionary tree was shown to be wrong - that does not affect my tree? Really? For some reason that just doesn't sound very scientific.

The guy in the video you keep spamming says he doesn't understand how it relates to evolution. That would be an indicator that you don't understand the source you keep posting over and over. Of course you almost never have any understanding of the subjects you try to discuss.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course you almost never have any understanding of the subjects you try to discuss.

And you do?

Or do you just think I said clams fly?

 

[crjmurray]

And you do?

Yes

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Obviously the great variation seen in dogs is the result of selective breeding far more intensive that which natural selection does, but

Nothing at all, just problems with calling other Kinds whales too. Seems that happens about 2 of every 3 fossils really studied.

It is dishonest to keep posting that video to support your assertion that two out of three fossils are misidentified. I challenged you to pull any quote from that video to support your interpretation and, to no one's surprise, you've been unable to. And I bet you can provide no justification for extrapolating the Horner's results for a few species to the entire fossil record.

(Edited to remove extraneous stored quotes and add a sentence.)

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Says the evolutionist who apparently doesn't know his paleontology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist)

"He is one of the best-known paleontologists in the United States....

...Within the paleontological community, Horner is best known for his work on the cutting edge of dinosaur growth research....

...Horner has published more than 100 professional papers, six popular books"

So now suddenly he's a nobody? Lol, half the stuff you now believe is because of him, and you an evolutionists don't know who he is? I can believe that since most of you get all your education from blog sites.

Ha! Easy on the scorn there, tiger. Once is on your side of the fence.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

But the mathematical equations cannot reconcile unknown values. You really don't know how severely the phylogenetic signal may be affected. In any case, the nested hierarchy is not free of some core assumptions.

No theory is free of some core assumptions. But in this case the assumptions seem to be born out by a) the strong mathematical support for one basic phylogeny and b) strong consilience between morphological and molecular trees. If the assumptions were fundamentally flawed and the phylogenetic signal thus hopelessly obscured, there is no reason to expect such consilience.

Well, most of this amazing "phylogenetic signal" really does come down to that simple concept... similar morphologies have similar molecules. This cannot reasonably be advanced as a strong confirmation of Evolution, (though that claim is made by evolutionists constantly, of course)

You should provide more than your mere assertion that such strong consilience is relatively insignificant. Perhaps you could give more detail. If, as we know, it is entirely possible to have similar morphology or function without similar molecules, why is this overwhelming consilience between the two data sets not to be considered support for the idea that the consilient patterns of similarities and differences are the result of ancestry? You say it is not, but you give no detail beyond the same morphology same molecules mantra.

The way evolutionists try and get around this is by using a teleological argument. They imply that because God could have designed similar morphologies with dissimilar molecules, but Evolution is more likely constrained to similar and similar, this then is stronger support for Evolution. Again, this argument is teleological as it implies how God would or wouldn't be constrained in the creation of life. The evolutionist needs to admit that he is using teleology to defend his theory and I wonder how "scientific" that is in the first place.

The implication that God would not (or at least has no reason to) do things thus is implied, but not really necessary. The consilience among the data sets is most parsimoniously explained by evolutionary theory. The teleology only comes in when we are trying to point out that it is not very logical in the context of what we are told about God to suggest that he would be limited to using similar molecules for similar morphologies (except when he doesn't).

But even the teleological argument has a major flaw when we use known intelligent designers as reference. For instance, it is certainly true that the same functions of computer programs can be performed by entirely different computer coding structures. However, if we consider a single human designer, he will typically copy similar program functions by copying the same or similar underlying coding structure. Likewise, the single human designer will tend to leave consistent patterns of his coding 'style' throughout the program. This is the natural consistent behavior of designers. Thus "similar animals are similar" is also an expectation from a single designer of life.

This would perhaps be convincing if you imagined god as being humanlike in his creative process, but he patently isn't. He is omnipotent. He can create with a word. A human designer copies elements because he is limited by time or money or imagination or will or whatever. Your God is not subject to such limitations, is he? Why would a timeless, omnipotent being need to take into consideration time and effort? Of course you can claim the he did it this way because you can say anything about a being of unverifiable abilities,.

I don't know enough about plate tectonics theory to go into detail on it. But based on what you said, it would be totally irrational to claim the support of plate tectonics theory is based primarily on the relative position of continents... or that plate tectonics is a good theory because it could be falsified by Australia being part of North America. If the emerging plate tectonics theory could have accommodated those alternate findings then it would be silly to turn around and claim their absence as evidence.

Yet by analogy, the general order of the fossil record is usually the first thing evolutionists go running to as the strongest support for universal common descent, even though their theory could have accommodated countless other fossil orders.

Plate tectonics was originally supported by, among other things, a comparison of fossil assemblages. But those assemblages could have told us Australia was part of North America and and the theory would accommodate it easily. Just because different fossil assemblages could have supported different conclusions about the specifics of which continents were attached, that doesn't mean they don't still provide evidence that plate tectonics are at work. Similarly, just because different fossil arrangements (though not different in any of the fundamental ways I've described) could have supported different conclusions about the specifics of how one taxon is related to another taxon, that doesn't mean that the pattern we see doesn't provide evidence that evolution is at work .

Another parallel that can be drawn between plate tectonics (whose validity I assume you aren't opposing) and evolution is the fact that both are supported by the consilience of independent lines of evidence. There's no compelling reason to believe that this consilience occurred by chance and the theories are in fact wrong.

 

[The Cadet]

Thanks as this strengthen my case the best evidence against evolution come from evolutionist themselves. So he isn't bias toward creationism.

You missed my point. When you refer to a source for a difficult claim, and your source contradicts your opinion on that claim, there's a problem. Case in point:

I don't have any problem with whales.... if you're referring to models of "whale evolution", here are a few interviews with the evolutionary paleontologists involved showing how they used ambiguous data or fabricated anatomical traits in order to push a more convincing picture of a fossil transitional sequence.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Evolutionists are faithfully convicted in their belief of how animals evolved so they are going to tend to impose those beliefs onto the data.

Interesting videos. Just one problem, though: Thewissen, the source we're looking at with regards to whale evolution, clearly holds that Ambulocetus is clearly a transitional form. I actually sent him an email asking him about those videos, because judging from the work of people like Ray Comfort and Ben Stein, we know popular creationists apparently have absolutely no qualms about dishonestly editing their videos to make very misleading points. I've sent Thewissen an email; let's see if he responds.

I don't know Richard Dawkins heart but i wonder sometimes if he started his crusade against God because his science views are in question. (the selfish gene)

The idea of the selfish gene is certainly in question. For example, by other biologists. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, who is not a creationist. It's a point of contention within biology - an idea with impressive explanatory power, but which needs more evidence to back it up.

If it is so simple, where in the pic list does actual man start?

I'm not sure what each of those skulls are, the source of the image is not given and it is not labeled. I'd guess only the last one, or the last and the one before last are actually homo sapiens. Then again, I'm not a paleontologist or an expert on fossils, so maybe ask one of them.

Here is a video showing 2 of every 3 of those are probably incorrect classification by one of those evolutionary paleontolgists as well.

Um... No. Jack Horner is not making the claim that 2 out of every 3 fossils is classified incorrectly. Hell, even in the specific field of examining dinosaurs, where, as his talk points out, mistakes were clearly made (keep in mind that the fact that dinosaurs evolved into birds is relatively new information), his figure isn't 2/3, it's 5/12. And he makes absolutely no claims that

How do you think they got evolution taught in the schools in the first place - by outright deception and fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Piltdown man was a fraudulent case over a hundred years ago that was doubted from the outset and revealed as a fraud by actual scientists using methods that, today, are bog-standard. It has nothing to do with modern biology nor the teaching of evolution. Bringing it up at this point is just ridiculous, and ignores the massive wealth of non-fraudulent fossil evidence.

 

[dad]

I'm not sure what each of those skulls are, the source of the image is not given and it is not labeled. I'd guess only the last one, or the last and the one before last are actually homo sapiens. Then again, I'm not a paleontologist or an expert on fossils, so maybe ask one of them.

.

Right. So maybe Loudmouth should stop spamming an image like that. Attempted guilt by association.

 

[Smidlee]

You missed my point. When you refer to a source for a difficult claim, and your source contradicts your opinion on that claim, there's a problem. Case in point:

Is this in the right thread?
My source may have a different worldview but that doesn't automatically contradict my claim.

The idea of the selfish gene is certainly in question. For example, by other biologists. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, who is not a creationist. It's a point of contention within biology - an idea with impressive explanatory power, but which needs more evidence to back it up.

A evolutionist ask his audience once if they could think of a experiment in biology that could prove or disprove "the selfish gene" idea. A person worldview will effect how they read the data / evidence.