The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Stratigraphic sequence of fossil record IS a good way to see the change of life form on the earth. But it does NOT prove life evolution. Don't be cheated by imaginations of people. The bad part of fossil sequence is that it strongly stimulates your erroneous imagination.

No it doesn't.

 

[Brightmoon]

Stratigraphic sequence of fossil record IS a good way to see the change of life form on the earth. But it does NOT prove life evolution. Don't be cheated by imaginations of people. The bad part of fossil sequence is that it strongly stimulates your erroneous imagination.

Actually if have get fine grained sedimentary rock and the layers are laid down annually you can get sort of evolutionary history . Cerion excelsior is one of two mollusks that shows this type of evolutionary history over several thousand years . C excelsior hybridised with another Cerion and formed a third species . You can watch the snails form the hybrid and watch one of the parent species go extinct. I remember that because the Cerion mollusks are part of SJ Gould’s research on punk eek

 

[Brightmoon]

Usually the fossil record is scattered like watching a damaged old fashioned film with every 100th frame still intact . Even with the film, it’s usually enough to be able to figure out the story . Since there is NO verifiable evidence whatsoever (except for some rather disjointed bible stories)for separate creation, there’s no reason to claim that Bible stories is the scientific answer. You creationists would still have to prove your case even if you did manage to refute evolution. ( and frankly, I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen)

 

[Brightmoon]

By the way, hiding science information from laymen, lying about it , changing scientific terminology , and making up pseudoscience terminology is not evidence against evolution

 

[juvenissun]

Actually if have get fine grained sedimentary rock and the layers are laid down annually you can get sort of evolutionary history . Cerion excelsior is one of two mollusks that shows this type of evolutionary history over several thousand years . C excelsior hybridised with another Cerion and formed a third species . You can watch the snails form the hybrid and watch one of the parent species go extinct. I remember that because the Cerion mollusks are part of SJ Gould’s research on punk eek

Are these studies perfect to you?
If not, what are the problems you can see?

 

[tas8831]

they don’t look alike to me so I don’t dont see how they could be mistaken for each other. I do understand that creationists tend to be deliberately ignorant ( but sheesh! ) The gorilla has a huge flange at the back of the head to support its jaw muscles . You can see the muscle scars where the jaw muscles attach on top of the head . In just by looking in a mirror you can see where your same jaw muscles attach at the side of your head . And these are females , gorilla males have a sagittal (bony )crest to hold the muscles at the top got the head ( don’t remember what a chimp male looks like and don’t feel like looking it up) Those big jaw muscles obviously prevent the brain from growing larger . In the fossil record you can see that the canine teeth are also getting smaller. The chimp has a less pronounced muzzle and even given the size difference in the living animal that’s not Totally due to just the change in size. Gorillas split from the chimp/ human/ gorilla lineage long before humans and chimps separated.

My goodness - it is almost as if you took 2 minutes to actually LOOK at the skulls in question INSTEAD OF making knee-jerk proclamations!

 

[theQuincunx5]

Stratigraphic sequence of fossil record IS a good way to see the change of life form on the earth. But it does NOT prove life evolution. Don't be cheated by imaginations of people. The bad part of fossil sequence is that it strongly stimulates your erroneous imagination.

I wasn't aware that anything in science was ever "proven" but rather preponderance of evidence showed those hypotheses which were most likely. As such fossils and their change over time showing the development of life overlaying changes in environment provide a lot of evidence for evolution.

If I am to believe otherwise I must assume dispose of Occam's Razor.

 

[juvenissun]

I wasn't aware that anything in science was ever "proven" but rather preponderance of evidence showed those hypotheses which were most likely. As such fossils and their change over time showing the development of life overlaying changes in environment provide a lot of evidence for evolution.

If I am to believe otherwise I must assume dispose of Occam's Razor.

Unfortunately, many many people take "many evidences" same as truth. I think, unconsciously, you might also be in that status too.

My knowledge/experience is: if ANY of those evidences is carefully examined, "many questions" can always be raised. That is how good ANY of those evidences really is.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Unfortunately, many many people take "many evidences" same as truth. I think, unconsciously, you might also be in that status too.

To be fair, most people probably do that, but my point still stands. Simply accusing me of something that you don't really have any evidence for because I raised a point that was inconvenient for you (predicated on your error of using the word "prove" in the first place) does not change the point.

My knowledge/experience is: if ANY of those evidences is carefully examined, "many questions" can always be raised. That is how good ANY of those evidences really is.

I am certain you are able to raise many questions about anything. That does not necessarily mean those questions are good or reasonable questions. I'm sure many flat-earthers have many questions about the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

To be fair, most people probably do that, but my point still stands. Simply accusing me of something that you don't really have any evidence for because I raised a point that was inconvenient for you (predicated on your error of using the word "prove" in the first place) does not change the point.

I am certain you are able to raise many questions about anything. That does not necessarily mean those questions are good or reasonable questions. I'm sure many flat-earthers have many questions about the earth.

To be substantial, there are two such examples of "evidence" briefly described in post #122 (my reply is in #123, and see no reply yet). I am not a biologist. So I could not question the work in a quick way. However, if you dare to, I would like to go over any one of the two slowly and carefully with you. Then we will see if the questions I could raise are good and reasonable or not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This looks like the far left skull in the top row (without the lower jawbone).

The skull of an adult female gorilla



digicoll.library.wisc.edu
link
Animal SkullsAnimal AnatomyThe SkullsFemale GorillaAnimal DrawingsPrimatesBonesSkullsPrimateForward

Dude, even a female gorilla skull doesn't look like those skulls do. Heck, it's glaringly obvious that it's brain case is much smaller and also has a ridge at the back of it not present in any of those skulls. It's also far more squat than the chimpanzee skull, which is actually the first skull in that line up and the one you bring up (even though it mentions that it is a modern chimp skull, it's my only issue with that image, since it could perpetuate the false belief that humans evolved from chimps rather than share an ancestor with them). Aside from the chimp and A. africanus skull, these skulls look like human skulls more than anything else. Which makes sense, considering that the rest belong to the genus Homo.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Dude, even a female gorilla skull doesn't look like those skulls do. Heck, it's glaringly obvious that it's brain case is much smaller and also has a ridge at the back of it not present in any of those skulls. It's also far more squat than the chimpanzee skull, which is actually the first skull in that line up and the one you bring up (even though it mentions that it is a modern chimp skull, it's my only issue with that image, since it could perpetuate the false belief that humans evolved from chimps rather than share an ancestor with them). Aside from the chimp and A. africanus skull, these skulls look like human skulls more than anything else. Which makes sense, considering that the rest belong to the genus Homo.

The chart does suggest evolving from apes.

 

[theQuincunx5]

The chart does suggest evolving from apes.

How does an ape not evolve from apes? I mean, we are "Great apes", are we not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How does an ape not evolve from apes? I mean, we are "Great apes", are we not?

We do 'monkey' around a lot.

 

[Heissonear]

Usually the fossil record is scattered like watching a damaged old fashioned film with every 100th frame still intact . Even with the film, it’s usually enough to be able to figure out the story . Since there is NO verifiable evidence whatsoever (except for some rather disjointed bible stories)for separate creation, there’s no reason to claim that Bible stories is the scientific answer. You creationists would still have to prove your case even if you did manage to refute evolution. ( and frankly, I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen)

Not to burst your bubble, but Evolution is not founded on observable evidence, but on best estimate speculation and belief.

As an evolutionist you should know this and tell people the truth. There was a time as an evolutionist I woke up to this.

Honesty may have been left behind in many who "accumulate knowledge". Seeking truth is the centerpoint, not accumulating knowledge into a reasoned theory.

The fossil proves evolution never happened. Best estimate physical science says "it should have" - as filling in the blanks.

But such is not wise in a God Created world. And unwise to make Science an Idol to live by and think science is the way to Reality, leaving God to the side, or out of all "educated" classrooms.

 

[Brightmoon]

Why do you keep lying about that ? It’s starting to freak me out.

 

[Speedwell]

Not to burst your bubble, but Evolution is not founded on observable evidence, but on best estimate speculation and belief.

As an evolutionist you should know this and tell people the truth. There was a time as an evolutionist I woke up to this.

Honesty may have been left behind in many who "accumulate knowledge". Seeking truth is the centerpoint, not accumulating knowledge into a reasoned theory.

The fossil proves evolution never happened. Best estimate physical science says "it should have" - as filling in the blanks.

But such is not wise in a God Created world. And unwise to make Science an Idol to live by and think science is the way to Reality, leaving God to the side, or out of all "educated" classrooms.

The Roman Catholics, who accept evolution and teach it in their schools, have no problem allowing God in their classrooms.

 

[Brightmoon]

Speedwell is right . In Public schools it’s against the law to teach a religious belief in the USA unless it has an overwhelming secular purpose. It’s one of the Lemon tests. This why claims that evolution is a religious belief failed to impress SCOTUS

 

[Heissonear]

Why are you deliberately ignoring responses to you assertions.

You are just making yourself look extremely foolish and dishonest, par for the course I suppose.

The poster is the topic?

Try again, about what the OP presents - out of billions of fossils there is not one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

Zero.

None.

What that means is the primary support and proof that evolution occurred by factual physical evidence is missing.

As a former evolutionist I had to face this fact. Evolution is a reasoned best estimate at best by earth scientists. And it is speculation to make a Tree of Life diagram of branching of lifeforms through time. Pure speculation. No evidence to diagram such.

Why don't evolutionists face up?

 

[Brightmoon]

The poster is the topic?

Try again, about what the OP presents - out of billions of fossils there is not one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

Zero.

None.

What that means is the primary support and proof that evolution occurred by factual physical evidence is missing.

As a former evolutionist I had to face this fact. Evolution is a reasoned best estimate at best by earth scientists. And it is speculation to make a Tree of Life diagram of branching of lifeforms through time. Pure speculation. No evidence to diagram such.

Why don't evolutionists face up?

. Because along with the fossils we’ve got developmental info, and anatomical info , genetics, biochemical info, geological info etc Even with just fossil info, there are fine graded lineages that show macroevolution over time. Why don’t you face up to the fact that you get some of your pseudoscience creationist info from people who have a well deserved reputation for lying