The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[Oncedeceived]

Then once certainly has my sincere apology - but that was the next logical response from the evolutionary camp - to suddenly disclaim who they previously regarded as an expert, because he calls their entire theory into question - more than it already has been shown to be, while still relying on the data this now non-expert has given them in the past, because when he agreed with them he was of course an expert.

So if Once really just wanted to know who he was you have my sincere apology Once.

No problem. I understand that it is hard to know where any one stands on this forum without our icons.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No problem. I understand that it is hard to know where any one stands on this forum without our icons.

Yes, we certainly need our stance icons back. Things are now in different places and in a different format and so were overlooked.

But he is one of their main paleontologists and evolutionary supporters. So you can be sure if the data didn't confirm that 2 of every 3 were incorrect classifications, he wouldn't be saying it. And cut down the need for 12 major ones to just 7. Good number that as he says - to which I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, we certainly need our stance icons back.

They're still here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They're still here.

Where did you get that old thumbsup smiley? I miss those.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did you get that old thumbsup smiley? I miss those.

It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).

I'll see if I can hunt up the others for you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolutionists point to changes within the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that there theorized changes across species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New varieties and new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within the already existing species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).

I'll see if I can hunt up the others for you.

 

[lifepsyop]

Jack Horner says:
"Nope, this is just a dinosaur problem. Most animals don't change as significantly during growth. Most vertebrates and other reptiles grow like Alligators and change little."

One wonders how Mr. Horner has concluded that this is "just a dinosaur problem". After all, Evolutionists didn't think the problem even existed in dinosaurs before someone bothered to look.

For example, how does Mr. Horner know what extinct synapsid body-plans look like during different stages of growth? Any ideas? Could you ask him?

No, it's just you and various other creationists blowing a small discovery way, way out of proportion. There is no major scientific upset here. Horner found some very interesting discrepancies in the fossil record of dinosaurs. This does not have any major impact on anything else, however.

Okay, just for arguments sake, (even though logic says otherwise) lets say the problem is only constrained to dinosaurs. Even if that's the case, it still represents a major upset in biological classification. Dinosaurs are a huge group of animals. (Not to mention it transgresses into sacrosanct territory concerning dino-bird evolution models.) So even with just dinosaurs, my original point stands and I believe evolutionists know it would be a public-relations nightmare to admit it publicly. Again, instead of getting excited about a major scientific upset in their way of understanding, (like we're always told scientists are so eager to do) they are quietly sweeping the problem under the rug lest it disturb the applecart.

I'm amazed that Horner could be so flippant about it but I bet its because he knows the wrath that will come down on him if he disturbs that hornet's nest. Either way, kudos to him for shedding some light on the problem.

I would be curious what Atheos' thoughts are on the subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).

I'll see if I can hunt up the others for you.

If you click on the smiling face right there on your format bar (or whatever it's called), you get another bar with all the types of smilies available to us.

Click on the OLD SCHOOL SMILIES, and you'll see them in there.

Note: You have to be in REPLY mode.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).

I'll see if I can hunt up the others for you.

Hey, it worked! Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, it worked! Thanks.

Good deal!

I hope my instructions for finding the others were clear!

If not, let me know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists point to changes within the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that there theorized changes across species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New varieties and new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within the already existing species.

Creationists claim that there is a magical "DNA barrier" but they can never show evidence of it existing.

And micro and macro are all properly called evolution. Most creationists don't understand gravity. The test that they cite for gravity is extremely similar to the test for "microevolution".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you click on the smiling face right there on your format bar (or whatever it's called), you get another bar with all the types of smilies available to us.

Click on the OLD SCHOOL SMILIES, and you'll see them in there.

Note: You have to be in REPLY mode.

Got it! Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Got it! Thanks.

You're very welcome!

 

[lifepsyop]

Creationists claim that there is a magical "DNA barrier" but they can never show evidence of it existing.

The funny thing is I have seen several evolutionists on this forum insist that there is a "magical barrier" blocking minor trait convergences and reversals. The reason they have to contradict themselves like this is to make phylogenetic analysis seem more reliable.

And micro and macro are all properly called evolution.

"Change over time" is called evolution.

Conclusion: "Evolution" is a completely useless descriptor. It is actually one of the most ambiguously useless terms in all of science. But that is no surprise as evolution theory has always relied upon extreme equivocation.

 

[The Cadet]

But he is one of their main paleontologists and evolutionary supporters. So you can be sure if the data didn't confirm that 2 of every 3 were incorrect classifications, he wouldn't be saying it. And cut down the need for 12 major ones to just 7. Good number that as he says - to which I agree.

Uh... What? Did you miss the last page?

Evolutionists point to changes within the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that there theorized changes across species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New varieties and new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within the already existing species.

Can the "DNA code barrier" be demonstrated to exist? Also, "random gene shuffling" is not the only thing that happens in mutation. Either way, you're simply wrong. We have observed speciation on numerous occasions.

One wonders how Mr. Horner has concluded that this is "just a dinosaur problem". After all, Evolutionists didn't think the problem even existed in dinosaurs before someone bothered to look.

This particular problem just simply does not exist outside of certain breeds of dinosaur. The misclassification was made due to a very specific issue with frilled dinosaurs. It by no means implicates the entire rest of the fossil record.

For example, how does Mr. Horner know what extinct synapsid body-plans look like during different stages of growth? Any ideas? Could you ask him?

Why don't you? You seem interested in knowing these things, why not go out and do a little bit of research? However, a big hint is that this sort of major change to skull structure over time is exceedingly rare among all known species, essentially being shared by certain breeds of dinosaur and certain breeds of bird.

Okay, just for arguments sake, (even though logic says otherwise) lets say the problem is only constrained to dinosaurs. Even if that's the case, it still represents a major upset in biological classification. Dinosaurs are a huge group of animals. (Not to mention it transgresses into sacrosanct territory concerning dino-bird evolution models.)

There's no logical reason to assume that this problem actually extends past the very specific group of dinosaurs in question.

So even with just dinosaurs, my original point stands and I believe evolutionists know it would be a public-relations nightmare to admit it publicly. Again, instead of getting excited about a major scientific upset in their way of understanding, (like we're always told scientists are so eager to do) they are quietly sweeping the problem under the rug lest it disturb the applecart.

Yeah, see, the problem is, there's no reason to assume the problem extends past the range suggested by genetic evidence.

I'm amazed that Horner could be so flippant about it but I bet its because he knows the wrath that will come down on him if he disturbs that hornet's nest. Either way, kudos to him for shedding some light on the problem.

I love this!

"Here's this scientist saying something!"
"Um... No, that's not what he's saying, here's an email from him where he explains what he meant."
"Ha! He's just not saying anything because the massive pro-evolution conspiracy will come down hard on him if he does!"

Are you going to do this every time it turns out you misquoted a scientist? Like, Hans Thewissen, who apparently disagrees quite firmly with you on whales. Is he now just "toeing the line"? At what point will you simply admit that these people do not agree with you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationists claim that there is a magical "DNA barrier" but they can never show evidence of it existing.

And micro and macro are all properly called evolution. Most creationists don't understand gravity. The test that they cite for gravity is extremely similar to the test for "microevolution".

I'm still puzzling over the first life form. What did it eat? What gave it the ability to "organize it's molecules" in order to reproduce itself? It seems that what should be the simplest link in the chain of evolutionary events is the least understood. How is it that science knows with absolute certainty that life appeared 3.6 billion years ago, but knows little else about it. Science insists that evolution only deals with existing organisms, not the origin of life, but the original organisms had to possess the tools and materials to evolve. How does science explain the complexity of a 'simple' organism that spontaneously appears, upon which their theory depends?

 

[The Cadet]

I'm still puzzling over the first life form. What did it eat? What gave it the ability to "organize it's molecules" in order to reproduce itself? It seems that what should be the simplest link in the chain of evolutionary events is the least understood. How is it that science knows with absolute certainty that life appeared 3.6 billion years ago, but knows little else about it. Science insists that evolution only deals with existing organisms, not the origin of life, but the original organisms had to possess the tools and materials to evolve. How does science explain the complexity of an organism that spontaneously appears?

Have you spent any time researching this? I mean, you may be puzzling, but I don't think you've been googling. I mean, we don't have a solid answer yet, but there are solid hypotheses that help explain these things. Spend some time looking into information (from sources other than Answers in Genesis), it might help. I keep hearing things like this stated as questions... Well, try looking for the answers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Have you spent any time researching this? I mean, you may be puzzling, but I don't think you've been googling. I mean, we don't have a solid answer yet, but there are solid hypotheses that help explain these things. Spend some time looking into information (from sources other than Answers in Genesis), it might help. I keep hearing things like this stated as questions... Well, try looking for the answers.

I've spent a lot of time searching out the subject. The first 'life form' is absent from everything I've read. All the articles jump right to a complex organism.
You are actually reinforcing my case. The first life form has to be the foundation stone of evolution, yet you yourself admit uncertainty about it's nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still puzzling over the first life form. What did it eat? What gave it the ability to "organize it's molecules" in order to reproduce itself? It seems that what should be the simplest link in the chain of evolutionary events is the least understood. How is it that science knows with absolute certainty that life appeared 3.6 billion years ago, but knows little else about it. Science insists that evolution only deals with existing organisms, not the origin of life, but the original organisms had to possess the tools and materials to evolve. How does science explain the complexity of a 'simple' organism that spontaneously appears, upon which their theory depends?

Why do you think that this would be the simplest link? The problem is that there is no way at all that the actual "first life" would leave a visible imprint. And we don't know when life began exactly, we can put a minimum date of when life had to exist by evidence.

And you are talking about abiogenesis. That is a different sort of problem than evolution. The original cells are long gone, except in the sense that all life can trace its ancestry to those cells. There are many different problems in understanding how life came about. Some are solved, some are still being worked on. There have been many successful experiments in abiogenesis, that does not mean the problem is solved yet by any means.