Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We are discussing fish to land animals.... that if they came out onto the land permanently would be lunch.....
How does the fossil record make the case for evolution?
Ah, Walt Brown, mechanical engineer.
Expert on all science.
I'm not a geologist (like Brown) but I am a biologist (unlike Brown), and I know to ignore anything Brown says on any science by virtue of his willingness to lie for his cause. In his online book, he claims:
"An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man."
One thing to note - he mentions "(all that were sequenced at that time)". He cites his son's science fair project as his source:
"R. B. Brown, Abstracts: 31st International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington, D.C.: Science Service, 1980), p. 113."
also note that he writes in the footnotes:
"While the rattlesnake’s cytochrome c was most similar to man’s, man’s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City A could be the closest city to City B, but City C might be the closest city to City A.)"
A couple of problems... I will not reinvent the wheel, so I will just post the following (bolding in the original; red text my emphasis):
Dave Wise has an interesting website called The Bullfrog Affair , where he talks about creationist claims over genetic distances. In particular, he debunks Duane Gish's claims. However, he also addresses Walt Brown's specific claims about cytochrome C, rattlesnakes, and man. Here is the relevant excerpt (somewhat lengthy, sorry--my emphasis in bold).
quote:In the meantime, other creationist watchers were getting into the act.
Two of them reported their experiences in _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_
(Vol.4 No.5, Sept/Oct 1984, pp 14-17).
Frank Arduini encountered a similar protein claim by Walter T. Brown Jr of
the Chicago area; his Center for Scientific Creation used to be ICR Midwest
Center. Arduini had had many dealings with Brown, whose response to Arduini's many requests for documentation was that he didn't need to supply evidence supporting his claims, rather it was responsibility of the evolutionists to disprove them.
One of Brown's claims that Arduini was especially interested in was that
the rattlesnake's closest biochemical relative is humans. However, Brown
demanded $70 from Arduini to provide that documentation.
Robert Kenney of Chicago fared somewhat better. In February 1984, he and
his wife visited the ICR in El Cajon, Calif. When he asked Gish directly for
documentation supporting his claims concerning fetal horse hemoglobin, Gish
became noticeably disturbed (that Kenney had Awbrey & Thwaites' article in
front of him throughout the conversation probably did not help Gish's
disposition much). Finally, Gish said that he had no documentation, but rather
that Kenney should see Gary Parker. Kenney's attempts to catch Parker during
his scheduled offices hours on two separate days failed. Before Kenney left,
Dr. Cummings promised to get the documentation for him. After nine months,
it still had not arrived.
Then in the Summer of 1984, Kenney wrote to Walter Brown about the fetal
horse hemoglobin. Brown responded with a telephone call. Kenney tried to get
Brown to confirm or deny the ICR's claims, or at least to pressure the ICR to
produce some kind of documentation. Brown refused, but instead offered another claim: rattlesnake proteins.
Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret
Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism. When Kenney asked Brown to provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't. Dayhoff had never reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to reach that conclusion for a science fair project. It was Brown's son who had concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c
than to any other organism.
For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project
(apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are). Kenney wrote:
"In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed
by only fourteen amino acids. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by
one amino acid. Later, Brown called me again and then explained that
of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the
RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake. You see, among the forty-seven there were no other snakes." (CEN Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)
Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the
rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just barely less different than the others. Obviously, this is just semantic
sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so
blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing.
Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about
rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism.
When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown
quickly changed the subject.
IOW - Brown's son took after his dad; daddy Brown in turn lied for Jesus.
This is why I do not trust Walt Brown on any subject.
Same deal. There are plenty of examples of semi-aquatic organisms (fish and amphibians) that have appendages that serve in both water and land. Your assumption that the transition between one to the other would be non-functional is unwarranted and contradicted by what we observe in nature.
It is fully warranted. There is no evidence that this creature can survive outside of the water except for short periods. It would become lunch...... It can't outrun its predators, and would go extinct long before it could develop functioning legs capable of evading predators.
You all claimed the same thing about the Coelacanth until one was found and its DNA tested and your story fell apart and suddenly they don't want to talk about the Coelecanth being the prime transitional species between water and land anymore. All your stories fall apart over the years, but you just keep replacing them with more pigs teeth and tell new stories......
Answered. Post 122 and #313 which you failed to give any justification for dismissing except ad-hominem remarks. But that's bceause you have no real science to back up your claims....You are asking this?
Well (31st attempt):
You know, the piece of information you have no answers for and thus have been dodging for 6 days now.
- the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
- the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.
- these difference are found along all geological formations.
Mammals? We are discussing fish to land animals.... that if they came out onto the land permanently would be lunch..... You are jumping your evolutionary pathway by a few hundred million years....
What are you blabbing about? I was referencing the use of microfossils, such as foraminifera, recovered from drilled samples, to permit fine scale correlation of strata penetrated in oil and gas exploration/exploitation.Correlate across millions of years???
What the truth too hard for you to say? Make up "missing" ancestors in an attempt to correlate between the forms for every single claimed split on every single tree?
It's ok, you can say it. Made up missing ancestors that allow you to bridge the chasms between actual species.....
Answered. Post 122 and #313 which you failed to give any justification for dismissing except ad-hominem remarks. But that's bceause you have no real science to back up your claims....
"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own."
I am glad to see you all agree my idea of fossilization is more sensible than your own. Oh but that's right, they have no theory about how things fossilize except rapid burial in sediments from "local" floods. lol, local.....
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fossil-record-explained.8078771/page-16#post-73115865
We already understand that mutations are deleterious.
Why are you not presenting this as an example of evolution? Is not random mutation evolution?
And if you believe the body just suddenly develops fully formed organs where they didn't exist before, you are worse off than I thought.....
Once again.... at some point in the flipper to leg scenario, the limb is a hindrance to both as it functions as neither a functional flipper, nor as a leg capable of evading predators in either environment...
And let's see, humans that have dwarfism are still fully formed, have developed no new appendages, and so your example fails miserably to describe the emergence of fully formed life that didn't exist before..... Now it might explain the difference between tall humans and short humans, but that's about it.....
This is just a completely unfounded claim and is again refuted just by examining semi-aquatic organisms. It sounds like your only argument is based on personal incredulity.
It's also worth noting that during the original water->land dwelling transition there wouldn't have been any land based predators for such organisms to worry about.
You're just babbling at this point. You were trying to argue that an organism can have a limb capable of serving functions on land and water, and that such a limb must become non-functional at some point. But you've offered nothing to support that but your own incredulity. That's not a good argument.
Except they do, each worldwide flood laid down it's own layer, which is why the strata is ummm, worldwide, not local to each area as local floods do today.....Sorry, those posts do not address my points even closely.
They don't deal with the stratification of the fossil record whatsoever.
And since you only want to deal with ypour talking points, what's that make you... A liar and a deciever?They only deal with your own talking points.
So you are a lioar and deceiver, no less.
And this occurred worldwide how????? With the same strata worldwide, how?????I am glad to see you all agree my idea of fossilization is more sensible than your own?
We both agree that fossilization mostly is a rapid burial mostly in mud. So what part of my definition of fossilization differs from yours up to this moment? NO part.
That's what you keep CLAIMING, but I see no reasoning here that shows how this was accomplished, just bare unsupported claims......DECEIVING by strawman fallacy by deliberately misinterpreting my position.
Anyway, the fossilization process is completely irrelevant here. It's your little plaything in order to not having to deal with the actual points I made. Which is the observable stratification of the fossil record.
You have no answer to that. And you and I know it.
What are you blabbing about? I was referencing the use of microfossils, such as foraminifera, recovered from drilled samples, to permit fine scale correlation of strata penetrated in oil and gas exploration/exploitation.
You asserted "Every single lifeform that ever existed is fully formed, and remains the same across what you claim is millions of years with no change at all."
It is only the changes that permit us to conduct such correlation over finer intervals than millions of years. Oil companies would not spend large sums employing such individuals, financing research and paying even more to top line consultants, if it didn't work.
Ergo, your assertion is shown to be nonsense by the facts.
The following groups of organisms are entirely missing in the fossil record of the Devonian - worldwide oberservable in all Devonian sites:
- mammals
- dinosaurs
- birds
- reptiles
- flowering plants.
Are you claiming that only one species evolved into land animals? How many underwent this random mutation all at the same time to get a viable population????
I have offered logical reasoning, you have offered only wishful thinking. At some point we both know it would not yet be a leg, but would no longer serve as a flipper. The two are mutually excuded. Either it functions as a foot or it functions as a flipper.
Also no limbs in partial transition have ever been found. Every one that has been found is either a flipper or a foot.
Ha. And the seven dwarves?Sad you don't understand the Genesis story is an analogy of the six creation periods of the earth....
The following groups of organisms are entirely missing in the fossil record of the Devonian - worldwide oberservable in all Devonian sites:
- mammals
- dinosaurs
- birds
- reptiles
- flowering plants..
But just contrast what you believe with a Young Earth creationist. Or a creationist who believes in appearance of age.
Those alternatives are radically different from what you believe when it comes to the history of the planet.
You are asking this?
Well (31st attempt):
You know, the piece of information you have no answers for and thus have been dodging for 6 days now.
- the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
- the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.
- these difference are found along all geological formations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?