The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[Subduction Zone]

No one is making any excuses. We are merely correcting errors.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh they know, they are just in the excuse stage is all.

The Bible says nothing of how long ago the universe was created. Only mankind and the animals created with him. Which were created after the darkness that befell the earth.

Some say comet - some say meteor - some described it in terms of angels cast out of heaven.

But when the Hebrew word "hayah" is properly translated that discrepancy goes away. "And the earth *became - hayah* desolate and waste. And darkness *became - hayah* upon the surface of the deep.

And hence the dinosaurs went extinct. And another unknown period of time passes and God moves and the darkness clears. And man is created upon the destruction - the sixth creative act in a period of 5 unknown extinctions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events

And an unknown period spent within the garden before we begin to even count time.

The verb hayah means "to be" and its tense is context specific. This is the verb God speaks to Moses: "hayah asher hayah" translated as "I am that I am".

God is not saying "I will become what I will become", but is declaring that He is that He is.

Your idiosyncratic reading of the verb hayah in order to read backward into the text something that simply isn't there does by no means help you out here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Pure Darwinian mysticism.




Actually nested hierarchies are specifically indicitave of design. The mere fact of having a discernable nested hierarchy requires that life be split into distinct types.

Evolution, this magical process you believe in, if it was actually true, would produce extremely smooth gradations between all forms of life. That is actually what you expect to see. Your cult leaders haven't informed you of this, so I'm sure you don't understand.

So just keep saying the mantra: "nested hierarchy" over and over again since it sounds technical and impressive.





You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand your theory. You just chant phrases. "DNA! GENETICS! FOSSILS! ANATOMY!"

You do not realize how contradictory all those data sets can be (and often is) and Evolution can simply mold itself to accommodate it. The data "fits like a glove" to Evolution like a lump of warm jello "fits like a glove" in about a million different shaped containers.

-Fossils can be out of sequence, (as some are) and it is a "temporal paradox" of ancestors fossilizing after descendants.

-Molecular clock expectations can be way off, and it is simply a case of unexpected levels of conservation. (a molecular biologist actually stepped in this thread earlier and affirmed this character of evolution theory's uselessness)

-ERV's can be way off of assumptions and the problem can be pushed back to imaginary events occurring within imaginary common ancestors.


Since you don't actually critically examine your theory, you don't understand this. Evolutionists just sit around and chant mantras. I am seriously up against a mystery religion here. You people do not engage in scientific discussions.






Again with this ridiculous analogy. It is mind-numbing in its stupidity. Folks, this is honestly how the evolutionist's mind operates. He believes time itself makes universal Fish-to-Man Evolution inevitable. This is mysticism on steroids.




Classic evolutionist elephant-hurl. Can't produce an argument so just vaguely refer to your legendary "mountains of evidence" that's hiding somewhere amidst the fog of wild claims and bald assertions.

You're not doing your cause much good with this.

 

[lifepsyop]

You're not doing your cause much good with this.

If you have nothing to say then why respond?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If you have nothing to say then why respond?

Just thought that drawing your attention to the fact that the tactics you are using have the end result of making your posts read like spoofs might be something for you to think about, but if you actually think it's impressing your own crowd then hey-ho, carry on.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If you have nothing to say then why respond?

I think it's worth pointing out that your posts say very little. Or rather they say quite a lot with no support beyond your rhetoric. Here for instance:

-Fossils can be out of sequence, (as some are) and it is a "temporal paradox" of ancestors fossilizing after descendants.

-Molecular clock expectations can be way off, and it is simply a case of unexpected levels of conservation. (a molecular biologist actually stepped in this thread earlier and affirmed this character of evolution theory's uselessness)

-ERV's can be way off of assumptions and the problem can be pushed back to imaginary events occurring within imaginary common ancestors.

Your post would have some value if you actually provided the examples and sources that back up your bullet points instead of just disdainfully asserting them ad nauseum.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the twin needs to be in earth's frame so he doesn't age slower????

The twins need to be moving at different speeds for their clocks to tick at different rates.

Only when like you we ignore all of science.

Says the person who can't get the basics of Relativity right.

No relativity 101 is that is clocks slow under acceleration.

They slow compared to what?

How much does Earth's gravity slow down time compared to a frame of reference farther away from Earth's gravity well?

The twin as he accelerates notices no change in his clock - yet he ages slower. Now you deny that very theory because you do not want to accept the reverse. That as things slow - time speeds up.

That is why your scenario requires rocks to be taken off of the Earth, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to the Earth. Did you forget that part of the twin paradox?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just thought that drawing your attention to the fact that the tactics you are using have the end result of making your posts read like spoofs might be something for you to think about, but if you actually think it's impressing your own crowd then hey-ho, carry on.

Poe's Law?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Pure Darwinian mysticism.

There's nothing "mystic" about it. Whatever "mystic" means - I have no need for it.

It's what happens if you have competing systems with limited resources that reproduce with variation... They'll change over generations... inevitably.

What's so "mystic" about that?

Actually nested hierarchies are specifically indicitave of design.

How so?

Use a real life example of a productline that falls into a nested hierarchy.
I'm even going to throw you a bone and not restrict you to a single manufacturer.

Go ahead. Support your claim.

The mere fact of having a discernable nested hierarchy requires that life be split into distinct types.

...through inheritance of genetics. Through EXACTLY the process we know as biological reproduction.
The process of evolution can ONLY result in such a pattern. Any other pattern wouldn't fit into the idea of common ancestry with slow gradual change over generations, leading to diversity.

Evolution, this magical process you believe in

There's nothing "magical" about the accumulation of small changes, resulting into a big changes.

, if it was actually true, would produce extremely smooth gradations between all forms of life.

And it does. So smooth, that every individual that lives, ever lived or ever will live is of the same species as its direct parents and direct off spring.

So smooth, that you can't even see the micro-changes taking place from one generation to the next with the naked eye.. You actually need to dive to the molecular level to see the mutations. And just to leave nothing to be implied: you CAN see them at the molecular level.

So just keep saying the mantra: "nested hierarchy" over and over again since it sounds technical and impressive.

??

What's so technical and impressive about the tree pattern?
It's not like you need a doctorate to understand the branching pattern...

So, I take it that you deny that the theory of evolution expects life to fall into a branching tree pattern?

It's one thing to not accept the theory, but it's an entirely different matter to flat out lie about or misrepresent what the theory actually states and predicts...

Evolution expects to see the exact pattern that we actually see in all species. This is simply a fact that can't be argued about.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand your theory. You just chant phrases. "DNA! GENETICS! FOSSILS! ANATOMY!"

Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to point out how it is insufficient.

-Fossils can be out of sequence, (as some are) and it is a "temporal paradox" of ancestors fossilizing after descendants.

Can you cite some examples please?

-Molecular clock expectations can be way off, and it is simply a case of unexpected levels of conservation. (a molecular biologist actually stepped in this thread earlier and affirmed this character of evolution theory's uselessness)

Can you cite some examples where you feel like this is a factor that is problematic please?

-ERV's can be way off of assumptions and the problem can be pushed back to imaginary events occurring within imaginary common ancestors.

I don't understand what your point here is.
Can you explain it in a bit more detail for me?

Since you don't actually critically examine your theory, you don't understand this. Evolutionists just sit around and chant mantras. I am seriously up against a mystery religion here. You people do not engage in scientific discussions.

I'm not a biologist and it isn't "my theory".

My expertise is software engineering and my professional experience with evolution is the use of genetic algorithms in a framework a couple of years ago.

I think I have a good enough understanding of how evolution works. And you haven't said anything to me that makes me have doubts about anything.

However, i'm open to you presenting some actual solid evidence.

Again with this ridiculous analogy. It is mind-numbing in its stupidity.

No, it's not.

It's about accumulation.
It's about how introducing micro-changes gradually, you inevitably end up with big changes in the long run.

just like how inches turn into miles

Folks, this is honestly how the evolutionist's mind operates. He believes time itself makes universal Fish-to-Man Evolution inevitable. This is mysticism on steroids.

No, not time.

Instead, the rather endless loop of reproducing with variation and mutation over the course of 3.6 billion years. Billions of years of introducing changes into DNA molecules and running them through a "test" (natural selection) to pick the ones to repeat the process for a new generation.

That is what produced all the variation. A combination of all factors.
Not "just" time. Not "just" mutation.
But time+mutation+competition+selection+reproduction...

Classic evolutionist elephant-hurl. Can't produce an argument so just vaguely refer to your legendary "mountains of evidence" that's hiding somewhere amidst the fog of wild claims and bald assertions.

I just explained you the abstract of the evidence. The nested hierarchy in all life.

This means you can take any 2 random creatues and start mapping. That's what the mountain is. The practically infinite combinations of comparisions you can do (from multiple angles and levels) and always obtain the same result: the same nested hierarchies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually nested hierarchies are specifically indicitave of design. The mere fact of having a discernable nested hierarchy requires that life be split into distinct types.

I have yet to see a creationist back this argument up. They like to trot this claim out, but they never try to support it.

Will you be any different? I will second DogmaHunter's challenge. Take a set of known designs and show how they fall into a nested hierarchy. You could use paintings by van Gogh, or Ford cars if you like. Show how human designs fall into a nested hierarchy as you claim they do.

So just keep saying the mantra: "nested hierarchy" over and over again since it sounds technical and impressive.

We will keep pointing to the evidence until you address it.

 

[lifepsyop]

...through inheritance of genetics. Through EXACTLY the process we know as biological reproduction.
The process of evolution can ONLY result in such a pattern. Any other pattern wouldn't fit into the idea of common ancestry with slow gradual change over generations, leading to diversity.

You don't understand. Evolution predicts the origin of populations blended by so fine gradations of differences that it would be difficult if not impossible to discern a nested hierarchy between their traits. Now of course most of these would go extinct, but isn't it amazing that between all of extant life and even the most plentiful 95+ % of the fossil record of marine invertebrates, life always and only can be detected by highly distinct types. Never any evidence of this trait gradation and blending that you predict would be happening constantly over geologic time. Almost as if universal common descent is not true at all. Think about it for a minute because I know your cult leaders never bring the matter to your attention.

But as with most things, Evolution resists falsification by simply accommodating failed predictions. We only see evidence of distinctiveness because no evidence to the contrary happened to be left over from the mystical Darwin fairies handiwork, of course.

This is why the school of Cladistics was not anticipated and had to be invented later on in the game. Evolutionists were not expecting to be limited only to comparing similarities of distinct types in order for their conjuring up imagined common descent relationships.

I have yet to see a creationist back this argument up. They like to trot this claim out, but they never try to support it.

Will you be any different? I will second DogmaHunter's challenge. Take a set of known designs and show how they fall into a nested hierarchy. You could use paintings by van Gogh, or Ford cars if you like. Show how human designs fall into a nested hierarchy as you claim they do.

Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique. Nested hierarchies are virtually inevitable. Of course an evolutionist would try and use something like this as their best evidence. It's exactly what you would expect from a pseudo-scientific theory that cannot persuade in any real or observable way. It's the same reason you guys use "Things change" and "That which survives, survives" as leading arguments. This is what we would expect from a wishy-washy creation ideology posing as theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't understand. Evolution predicts the origin of populations blended by so fine gradations of differences that it would be difficult if not impossible to discern a nested hierarchy between their traits.

Evolution also predicts that barriers to genetic transfer between populations will cause the accumulation of different mutations in each population causing much greater divergence over time. This will produce distinctive characteristics in different populations.

This is one the most basic features of evolution, and yet you try to pretend that it makes the exact opposite predictions. That's not a very honest way to approach the subject.

Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique.

Then do it. Show us how cars fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy.

 

[lifepsyop]

Evolution also predicts that barriers to genetic transfer between populations will cause the accumulation of different mutations in each population causing much greater divergence over time. This will produce distinctive characteristics in different populations.

This is one the most basic features of evolution, and yet you try to pretend that it makes the exact opposite predictions. That's not a very honest way to approach the subject.

Yes Evolution can accommodate a nested hierarchy, but interestingly enough, Evolution would actually appear more convincing if the signal of a nested hierarchy was not recognizable due to such fine gradations of traits across at least a few major animal groups, or anatomical systems. Certainly only Evolution would predict such a gradiated pattern. Yet we never see this.

In terms of support for Evolution, you're actually taking the weaker of the outcomes and promoting it as your most powerful evidence.

Meanwhile, as stated, nested hierarchies is a virtually universal quality of designed objects. Designs are always differentiated by distinct changes in function, just like we observe in life on earth. And by the same token, designed objects are virtually never found with their parts separated by fine gradations like Evolution predicts.

Then do it. Show us how cars fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy.

Ah, there you go. You remembered to call it a "single objective" nested hierarchy, yet another baseless mantra. Sorry but life does not fall into a "single objective" nested hierarchy. Phylogenetics, or the very methodology used to establish such hierarchies, is overflowing with assumptions and subjectivity in assessing character traits, the level of homoplasy, etc. Even among evolutionists there is fundamental disagreement about which groups major taxa nest within. For example, whether birds nest within theropods or something entirely different.

"Feduccia is best known for his criticisms of the hypothesis, accepted by most paleontologists, that birds originated from and are deeply nested within Theropoda, and are therefore living theropod dinosaurs.

Feduccia here criticized the theropod hypothesis for the origin of birds, but his position was largely agnostic, conceding that there was evidence in support of both a theropod ancestry of birds and an ancestry from more basal archosaurs, perhaps similar in overall morphological organization to Euparkeria.Feduccia nevertheless suggested that on the basis of closer stratigraphic fit, ancestry from basal archosaurs rather than from coelurosaurian theropods might prove a better phylogenetic hypothesis.

From 2002, Feduccia has argued that the discovery of spectacular new fossils from the Cretaceous of China, like Microraptor, and other taxa with unambiguous feathers, like the oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx, suggest that there might have been an extensive, and hitherto unrecognized radiation of cryptic avian lineages, some of which rapidly lost flight and secondarily adopted a cursorial lifestyle, converging on theropods. On this argument, very birdlike groups like Dromaeosauridae and Oviraptorosauria, which are currently considered by most workers to be theropod dinosaurs, are thought actually to represent avian lineages, probably more derived than Archaeopteryx, that through homoplasy associated with the loss of flight and secondary acquisition of cursoriality, converged on theropod dinosaurs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Feduccia#Opposition_to_theropod_origin_hypothesis

Let's see, how can bird "objectively" nest within Theropods and at the same time be argued by a leading expert on "bird evolution" to nest in a completely different animal group?

How can you reconcile this with your obviously faulty claim that there exists a "single objective nested hierarchy of life" ?

You can't. So you'll ignore the problem, let things cool down, and then repeat your Nested Hierarchy mantra later on while bullying those who doubt your darwinian creation story who aren't aware of how wrong you are.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The verb hayah means "to be" and its tense is context specific. This is the verb God speaks to Moses: "hayah asher hayah" translated as "I am that I am".

God is not saying "I will become what I will become", but is declaring that He is that He is.

Your idiosyncratic reading of the verb hayah in order to read backward into the text something that simply isn't there does by no means help you out here.

-CryptoLutheran

http://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/1961.htm

"become, altogether, accomplished, committed, like, break, cause,"

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

The Hebrew "ehyeh" That you insist is "I am" is also translated "I will be" or "I shall be" - which is why accurately it is "I will be what I will be." Who are you to attempt to define Him?


"as is the case for its first occurrence, in Genesis 26:3"

So ehyeh is not even used to describe the creation at all. The word is hayah - to become or became depending on tense which is past tense in this verse.

Your putting words where words don't exist by any means whatsoever is not going to help you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes Evolution can accommodate a nested hierarchy, but interestingly enough, Evolution would actually appear more convincing if the signal of a nested hierarchy was not recognizable due to such fine gradations of traits across at least a few major animal groups, or anatomical systems. Certainly only Evolution would predict such a gradiated pattern. Yet we never see this.

You haven't shown that there should be fine gradations across major animal groups.

Meanwhile, as stated, nested hierarchies is a virtually universal quality of designed objects.

Yet you can't show how designed objects fall into a nested hierarchy.

Ah, there you go. You remembered to call it a "single objective" nested hierarchy, yet another baseless mantra. Sorry but life does not fall into a "single objective" nested hierarchy. Phylogenetics, or the very methodology used to establish such hierarchies, is overflowing with assumptions and subjectivity in assessing character traits, the level of homoplasy, etc.

Then show me the obvious and major violations of a nested hierarchy amongst life.

Even among evolutionists there is fundamental disagreement about which groups major taxa nest within. For example, whether birds nest within theropods or something entirely different.

"Feduccia is best known for his criticisms of the hypothesis, accepted by most paleontologists, that birds originated from and are deeply nested within Theropoda, and are therefore living theropod dinosaurs.

Feduccia has been shown to be wrong, and he refuses to accept it. Scientists who continue to push refuted phylogenies do not refute the evidenced phylogenies.

 

[ViaCrucis]

http://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/1961.htm

"become, altogether, accomplished, committed, like, break, cause,"

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

The Hebrew "ehyeh" That you insist is "I am" is also translated "I will be" or "I shall be" - which is why accurately it is "I will be what I will be." Who are you to attempt to define Him?


"as is the case for its first occurrence, in Genesis 26:3"

So ehyeh is not even used to describe the creation at all. The word is hayah - to become or became depending on tense which is past tense in this verse.

Your putting words where words don't exist by any means whatsoever is not going to help you.

You are correct, I mistook hayah for ehyeh, ehyeh is the singular first person imperfect form of hayah.

That said, hayah is still the verb "to be", or rather "was" or "existed"; as such the translation the the earth was without form and void is accurate; a translation of "the earth became formless and void" is not accurate. The earth did not become this state, this was the state of the earth at the beginning of creation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lifepsyop]

Feduccia has been shown to be wrong, and he refuses to accept it. Scientists who continue to push refuted phylogenies do not refute the evidenced phylogenies.

LOL. That's just it though. Feduccia can't be "proven wrong". There is simply an agreement that he is wrong. No evolutionist can demonstrate objectively that their Bird Evolution model is correct and Feduccia's model is wrong since each model makes its own assumptions. That is why your claim of a "single OBJECTIVE nested hierarchy" is so obviously wrong. You're just in denial and can't accept it.

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL. That's just it though. Feduccia can't be "proven wrong".

He has been shown to be wrong. He refuses to accept it.

We are still waiting for that single objective phylogeny for cars. Is it coming any time soon?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are correct, I mistook hayah for ehyeh, ehyeh is the singular first person imperfect form of hayah.

That said, hayah is still the verb "to be", or rather "was" or "existed"; as such the translation the the earth was without form and void is accurate; a translation of "the earth became formless and void" is not accurate. The earth did not become this state, this was the state of the earth at the beginning of creation.

-CryptoLutheran

No it's not, it it to become or became - depending on tense.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

"to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

It describes a condition arrived at from a pre-existing state. It was not in that state - but was to fall out - came to pass - became. It was not already desolate and waste and ringed with darkness or it could not come to pass to become desolate and waste and ringed with darkness. The heavens are of old - and declare His greatness.

http://biblehub.com/proverbs/8-22.htm

So Jesus is merely a few thousand years old?

The Bible diagrees.

http://biblehub.com/micah/5-2.htm

Perhaps you think the Bible writers meant a few thousand years back in their time - but they meant exactly what they said. Ancient.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You don't understand. Evolution predicts the origin of populations blended by so fine gradations of differences that it would be difficult if not impossible to discern a nested hierarchy between their traits. Now of course most of these would go extinct, but isn't it amazing that between all of extant life and even the most plentiful 95+ % of the fossil record of marine invertebrates, life always and only can be detected by highly distinct types. Never any evidence of this trait gradation and blending that you predict would be happening constantly over geologic time. Almost as if universal common descent is not true at all. Think about it for a minute because I know your cult leaders never bring the matter to your attention.

This is just more of your assertions that you re almost never willing to back up. Loudmouth responded to this by saying

You haven't shown that there should be fine gradations across major animal groups

Perhaps he'll clarify, but I assume he was asking you to provide any support for the assertion that we should see a record that is so finely graded that it is impossible to make any conclusions about their lineages. A perfect 100% complete fossil record would show a fine gradation, but there is no reason beyond your mere assertion that such a perfect sample could not be analysed to determine a phylogeny. Can you explain why it would not be possible to examine minute morphological and molecular differences as well as overall patterns observable by comparing more temporally-separated organisms? Or should we just take your word that it would be impossible?

Ah, there you go. You remembered to call it a "single objective" nested hierarchy, yet another baseless mantra. Sorry but life does not fall into a "single objective" nested hierarchy. Phylogenetics, or the very methodology used to establish such hierarchies, is overflowing with assumptions and subjectivity in assessing character traits, the level of homoplasy, etc. Even among evolutionists there is fundamental disagreement about which groups major taxa nest within. For example, whether birds nest within theropods or something entirely different.

I would assume by "objective hierarchy" Loudmouth means one derived from a the best statistically supported analysis. Just because it is possible to produce different phylogenies doesn't make them all equally well-supported. While Feduccia's phylogeny is fundamentally different, it is not as well-supported.

Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique. Nested hierarchies are virtually inevitable. Of course an evolutionist would try and use something like this as their best evidence. It's exactly what you would expect from a pseudo-scientific theory that cannot persuade in any real or observable way. It's the same reason you guys use "Things change" and "That which survives, survives" as leading arguments. This is what we would expect from a wishy-washy creation ideology posing as theory.

And yet, as has been pointed out, neither you nor really any other creationists are willing to do this