The fossil record explained

[pitabread]

Science asserts "C" but is silent about how these "." occur.

This isn't really true though. If you spend time reading scientific literature on how things evolved, there is a lot of work on reconstructing evolutionary pathways. This even includes things like recreating hypothetical ancestral genomes in order to study the required mutations to lead to particular outcomes.

Here's a specific example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

By comparing the differences in the genes for Vma3 and Vma11, Thornton and his colleagues reconstructed the ancestral gene from which they both evolved. They then used that DNA sequence to create a corresponding protein—in effect, resurrecting an 800-million-year-old protein. The scientists called this protein Anc.3-11—short for ancestor of Vma3 and Vma11. They wondered how the protein ring functioned with this ancestral protein. To find out, they inserted the gene for Anc.3-11 into the DNA of yeast. They also shut down its descendant genes, Vma3 and Vma11. Normally, shutting down the genes for the Vma3 and Vma11 proteins would be fatal because the yeast could no longer make their rings. But Thornton and his co-workers found that the yeast could survive with Anc.3-11 instead. It combined Anc.3-11 with Vma16 to make fully functional rings.​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This isn't really true though. If you spend time reading scientific literature on how things evolved, there is a lot of work on reconstructing evolutionary pathways. This even includes things like recreating hypothetical ancestral genomes in order to study the required mutations to lead to particular outcomes.

Here's a specific example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

By comparing the differences in the genes for Vma3 and Vma11, Thornton and his colleagues reconstructed the ancestral gene from which they both evolved. They then used that DNA sequence to create a corresponding protein—in effect, resurrecting an 800-million-year-old protein. The scientists called this protein Anc.3-11—short for ancestor of Vma3 and Vma11. They wondered how the protein ring functioned with this ancestral protein. To find out, they inserted the gene for Anc.3-11 into the DNA of yeast. They also shut down its descendant genes, Vma3 and Vma11. Normally, shutting down the genes for the Vma3 and Vma11 proteins would be fatal because the yeast could no longer make their rings. But Thornton and his co-workers found that the yeast could survive with Anc.3-11 instead. It combined Anc.3-11 with Vma16 to make fully functional rings.​

Just more goobledegook complete with a brand new term.

Science should just admit that things are way too complex to have 'evolved'. They're going to have to sooner or later. Best to get it over with before heads start to explode.

 

[pitabread]

Just more goobledegook complete with a brand new term.

Science should just admit that things are way too complex to have 'evolved'. They're going to have to sooner or later. Best to get it over with before heads start to explode.

So just because you don't understand something, that makes it untrue or invalid? Is that how things work?

On top of that, I posted in response to your claim that "Science asserts "C" but is silent about how these "." occur." When in fact they are most definition not silent when it comes to figuring how evolutionary pathways occurred.

That you arbitrarily dismiss that which is being studied is your problem.

 

[Abraxos]

Please anwer the points I made instead of this nonsense.

If you feel that the paleontological and geological evidence I brought in is false or full of confirmation biases, I love to hear it.

No it's not important how fossils are formed. They are there, sitting in the rocks. If they are formed by process X or by process Y or Z, it's all irrelevant.

AND NOW address my posts please instead of this dodging and evading.

What is it that you want me to address? That there are tens of millions of fossils in the strata rock layers? You seem to believe that simply seeing fossils in the dirt suffices as proof of whatever it is you're trying to sell to a crowd of skeptics and hard-nosed creationists. It's fine to make up some story on the millions of fossils that we see, but without going through any thorough scientific method, it's all really just a very cool (or lousy) story you are parroting.

I don't see the significance of avoiding an honest question I asked of you. If you're right, then why avoid having a friendly discussion about the formation of fossils and the issues that arise rather than stomping your feet and nagging us to death about "Irrelevant! Nonsense! Red herring!"? Perhaps you could change my mind with your infinite know-it-all status.

 

[dad]

Reminds me of the Scoffers of the last days who don't know that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:3-7 They will be so ignorant that they don't know the difference between the world that THEN WAS and the world WHICH IS NOW. IOW, their Scriptural illiteracy is legend. God Bless you

So if I think a day is a day I don't believe in a flood. OK. By the way, science is so ignorant, since they do not know the world of today is different!

Does your birthday last millions of years?

 

[dad]

Then "Dad" must provide scientific evidence for processes running differently in the past than today.

If you could provide scientific evidence for processes running the same in the past as today you might have a point.

"Dad" must also realize that we have those things called "physical laws" that are based on physical constants, you know, those pesky little things creationists are so fond of because they testify of a "fine tuned universe" that "therefore" must "be created by god".

Actually science does not know what forces are or what causes them. Forget knowing what they were! Your so called constants are circular beliefs all based in the present.

It's always breathtaking how creatinists insist on the fine tuned universe on one hand but change natural processes at their whim on the other - not realizing you can't have both.

If I played a great guitar, and later decided to play a different great guitar, both would be tuned. You simply cannot allow for God changing His creation for the benefit of man. Science prefers to say man is just an animal and the world a ting meaningless blue speck.

 

[Turkana]

It seems that you are here to preach evolution as if it were a religion. And you will wave away any question that you are uncomfortable with. Your assertions don't take place in a vacuum. Everything about the ToE is connected and can therefore be legitimately challenged.

Whatever. WHEN ar you going to address my OP and starting posts instead of this nonsensical claptrap?

Apart from red herrings and strawmen, SEEN NOTHING YET.

You seems to be saying,

"Present facts that refute my assertions", followed by

"I reject all facts that challenge my assertions."

Whatever. WHEN ar you going to address my OP and starting posts instead of this nonsensical claptrap?

And, the Dodo question wasn't for you to answer

If you want to have personal seances with Jimmy D. be my quest but you are operating here on a public forum and if you want other people, especially the one who started the thread, not to engage in the discussion, leave the scene.

So: THIS THREAD is not about the process of fossilization. It's irrelvant here. It's the very next red herring you introduce to have a talking point where actually you loss for words, judged by the nonsensical, irrelevant posts you produced riddled with red herrings and other diversions.

WHEN am I going to see relevant rebuttals?

 

[Turkana]

If you could provide scientific evidence for processes running the same in the past as today you might have a point.
Actually science does not know what forces are or what causes them. Forget knowing what they were! Your so called constants are circular beliefs all based in the present.
If I played a great guitar, and later decided to play a different great guitar, both would be tuned. You simply cannot allow for God changing His creation for the benefit of man. Science prefers to say man is just an animal and the world a ting meaningless blue speck.

So actually science does not know what forces are or what causes them. You must be kidding. You really live mentally in the bronze age, don't you? Well I live in the 21st century.

But when science doesn't know what processes are running, how do you know that processes in the past were running differently than today? Don't fall into your own trap, dude.

So you simply cannot allow for God changing His creation for the benefit of man? Great, at least you accept then that the elementary processes in the past are the same as today.

But, errr, wasn't that what I wrote? Yes it was.

So the "so called" constants are circular beliefs all based in the present?

Whatever you say, dude, out of your bronze age mythology world.

Good gracious.

 

[Turkana]

So if I think a day is a day I don't believe in a flood. OK. By the way, science is so ignorant, since they do not know the world of today is different!

Does your birthday last millions of years?

So the world was different in the past?

But didn't you write in your very next post:

You simply cannot allow for God changing His creation for the benefit of man.

does the right side of your brain knows what the left part thinks?

 

[Turkana]

Where did the fossils come from? Were they created by the Hands of Jesus or did they appear from nothing? Evolutionists don't want to speculate about where the creature which fossilized came from. Can you enlighten us?

I wrote a OP and two starting posts. They are about what the fossil record shows. How they got there is not relevant on this thread. They are there. And they testify unambiguously about evolution.

Were they created by the Jojo in the Sky? Seriously? You want me to tell something about your fantasies? When you want to suggest the fossils are put there by Jebus the Bearded Man, YOU provide the evidence. Scientific evidence, that is, which includes - a little introduction to the mehodology of science:

I. the phenomena must be observable and been actually observed.

If A causes B, A being the agent and B being the effect, BOTH factors, cause and effect, need to be observable phenomena and need to be actually observed.

Where can I find the observational evidence for the causal factor "god"?

Warning: you can't say the evidence for god is in the mere observation that DNA is complex etc. or that it "evidently looks like being designed" and thus "must" be designed. Because design is exactly what needs to be demonstrated here so you can't presume it in your equations in order to make your case. That's called circular reasoning. You can't assume the thing to be proven. Also you would be begging the question. And logical fallacies are not allowed in proper science.

II. the mechanism of causality must be known and modelled.

You need to state what particular mechanism is working in order for the causal factor to bring forth the studied effect. In science this is called the causal model. In evolution theory these mechanisms are genetic mutation, natural selection and endosymbiosis.

What exactly are the mechanisms of creation of life by god?

III. the causal mechanisms put forward must be observable en actually observed.

These causal mechanisms need to be demonstrated by themselves through observational evidence. In biology, genetic mutation, endosymbiosis and natural selection are extensively demonstrated in many experiments and controlled field observations ad nausiam.

Where is the observational evidence of the mechanisms your god applies in order to create life?

Not with me since I support what I post with agreement between Scripture, science and history. Please don't ask for scientific support until they discover the mysteries that God told us more than 3k years ago, in Genesis One. At the moment, they are a little behind.

The firmament which God called Heaven was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8
Our second firmament/2nd Heaven was made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

There are others too but those alone show that we live in a multiverse composed of multiply Universes....confirming String Theory. Amen?

Whatever boy. Live happily in your bronze age mythology fantasies.

I live in the 21st dentury where science has made minced meat out of this claptrap.

 

[Turkana]

Here's a simple diagram to show you what I mean by evolutionary details.

Code:

C = Change (large)
. = Small changes needed to complete large change.

We can't begin with a "C" because "C" requires many "." first. So a simple 'equation', if you will, would look like this,

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................C

Each "." must be successful, and in the proper order, in order for "C" to take place.

Science asserts "C" but is silent about how these "." occur. Perhaps you can help.

The very next irrelevant red herring providing a talking point to blab without any relevance to what the OP and 2 starting posts imply.

 

[Turkana]

OK. Forget it. I know how much you know now.
Disappointed.

Fine.

When am I going to see any relevant rebuttals or comments on my OP?

i have seen nothing yet.

 

[Turkana]

@Turkana Excellent OPs. Recently I had considered starting a similar thread. I am glad I did not since your effort is substantially better than mine would have been. Thank you, especially for the professionalism and objectivity of the expostion.

You are welcome.

It was pearls cast before swine because until now I've only seen strawmen, red herrings galore and irrelevant esotheric blab from the creationists. It's really embarrassing what they produce.

There's more to come, fasten your seat belts!

 

[AV1611VET]

It was pearls cast before swine because until now I've only seen strawmen, red herrings galore and irrelevant esotheric blab from the creationists. It's really embarrassing what they produce.

There's more to come, fasten your seat belts!

Creationists shouldn't produce anything but the word of God to tell evolutionists they are wrong.

 

[Turkana]

I think Juv is intimating that if a geographical area changes from forest to sea, for example, the fauna that lives there must evolve accordingly and we should see “transitional” fossils of rapidly evolving species at the boundaries of the strata.

OK. Forget it. I know how much you know now.
Disappointed.

Ah, thanks, now I understand his contention.
It's often very difficult to make sense out of obfuscations.
Well, the answer is quite easy: we do see fossils sitting at on the boundaries between geological layers but not quite transitional ones because at that point the new environmental conditions, which are still to occur at that point, did not get a foodhold yet. And don't expect organisms to adapat to not yet occurring environmental changes. So we should see transitional fossils above of the stratigraphical boundaries.

It's still a obfuscating red herring and irrelevant because my OP and starting posts are about the fossils that are there for everyone to observe in different layers and how they unambiguously depict a change in biodiversity. And a change in biodiversity is another word for evolution.

Whether we find transitional fossils at stratigraphical boundaries does not change a bit about different geological formations depicting changes in biodiversity. Neither does it change anything else about the observations I presented in my OP and 2 starting posts.

And I told him that but, I guess, don't take away his little play things. If you have no asnwer to things your opponent put forward, engage in red herrings.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's still a obfuscating red herring and irrelevant because my OP and starting posts are about the fossils that are there for everyone to observe in different layers and how they unambiguously depict a change in biodiversity. And a change in biodiversity is another word for evolution.

Your fossil record doesn't "unambiguously depict a change in biodiversity" -- except on paper.

All it does is show what fossils settled where.

1. Put an inner tube into a swimming pool.
2. Now pour in some marshmallows.
3. Now dump some dirt into the pool.

What's going to happen?

The dirt will take the marshmallows to the bottom with it first.

IF the dirt takes the inner tube with it, it will eventually break free and resurface.

4. Now saturate the pool with dirt and allow it to solidify.

What does your record show?

Marshmallows on the bottom; inner tube halfway down.

Yup -- only one conclusion:

The marshmallows were put into the pool first.

 

[pitabread]

Creationists shouldn't produce anything but the word of God to tell evolutionists they are wrong.

Except that creationists have no way to validate their ideas independently. Not to mention, a lot of creationists invoke Last Thursdayism-esque beliefs which are fundamentally indefensible to begin with.

If you hadn't read Carl Sagan's The Dragon in My Garage (an essay on philosophically indefensible beliefs), I suggest you do so. It will shed some light on the way your beliefs appear to the rest of us.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Creationists shouldn't produce anything but the word of God to tell evolutionists they are wrong.

Creationists can't seem to agree amongst themselves on what this "word of god" actually says. Go get your own house in order before telling evolutionists that they are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that creationists have no way to validate their ideas independently.

That's not our problem.

If you hadn't read Carl Sagan's The Dragon in My Garage (an essay on philosophically indefensible beliefs), I suggest you do so.

Thank you for the advice, but I'll pass.

It will shed some light on the way your beliefs appear to the rest of us.

Again, that's not my problem.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Translation: Sagan can take a hike.

 

[pitabread]

That's not our problem.

If you're trying to convince others that their views are incorrect and that your views are correct, then yes, it is your problem.

Do you think you're being an effective witness for Christ?