The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[bhsmte]

A regular Ken Ham.

Do you think being proud of your closed-mindedness is a good thing?

This is why humans developed psychological defense mechanisms.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The fact that some creatures use to have a feature like teeth or others have lost their eyesight does not necessarily mean that slow and gradual Darwinian evolution morphed these features in the first place.

One could try to argue that, but there's not a single creationist I know of that can explain why any creator would make chickens with enough teeth formation genes that they actually have teeth briefly as embryos, when at no point do chickens use teeth. Or why the heck emus have tiny arms without any musculature.

What I find interesting is that most of these examples are about the sudden loss of a complete feature just like we have seen in the fossil records the sudden gain of a complete feature.

The concept of an "incomplete" feature is a creationist misunderstanding of evolution. At no point is it claimed that fish evolved feet via having a useless half foot first. Rather, they start as simplistic, complete structures, with the start of feet being fins with some motion to them that were beneficial for moving along river beds, etc.

We do not see the gradual loss of hens teeth but the complete loss of all teeth.

Lol, what are you talking about? The loss is gradual, in that the teeth got smaller over the course of bird evolution. Members of the genus Jeholornis, for example, had very few, small teeth, and didn't even have a diet that utilized them much. How's about looking up bird evolution before making assumptions?

If this is the case for producing the features in the first place then this supports design rather than evolution as the sudden appearence of a complete feature is totally against evolution.

Nah, it's totally expected to see sudden changes in lineages when it comes to fossils, considering the rarity of fossils. Especially for organisms with soft bodies like squid, and organisms with fragile bones such as birds. Not that there aren't organisms that left behind tons of fossils for their lineage, such as trilobites. And guess what? We see plenty of more gradual changes in that lineage. Even with them, it's not like we get to see every 10th generation represented in the fossils so that we can see every significant evolutionary event (I'm not saying that there's only ever 1 such event within 10 generations, I just know that having that would make the evolution of any given lineage more gradual than a flip book).

Evolution is about small incremnetal steps as it is not capable of producing complete features all at once.

Your misunderstanding of evolution persists. Simple feet, not incomplete feet. Simple lungs not incomplete lungs.

For me this just supports that the genetic info for these features is already existing and has always been there and it is just a case of them being switch on or off.

Bacteria studies demonstrate otherwise. There is a bacteria evolution experiment that has gone on since the late 1980s, and one of the E. coli lineages developed the capacity to effectively digest citrate. They kept samples of every single generation, and thus not only could confirm that the bacteria didn't start out with this capacity genetically, but noting that the digestion of citrate like this demands multiple genes, they were able to pinpoint the generation that was 1 mutation away from being able to effectively digest citrate, and repeat the result. Complex traits can arise via mutation, even if multiple intermediate steps have very little impact compared to what happens after the final mutation.

 

[klutedavid]

I cannot see how that transition from dust of the ground to Adam can take place.


Tell that to lemurs... (while not technically monkeys, primates nonetheless).

Mandrills do pretty well not being in trees. So do geladas. Even little sooty mangabeys spend most of their time on the ground.

So it is probably best not to make broad proclamations when it is trivially easy to show that you are wrong.

Yes, they all climb trees when lions are around.

 

[klutedavid]

Not a tree in sight, they're doomed!

Nor a lion in sight either.

 

[klutedavid]

Many humans could run a marathon, if they trained for it.

Just a very slow target for a pride of lions, even if they could.

Let's say they jogged five kilometers and killed the gazelle. They then need to cut off the meat from the carcass and carry it back to camp. How long given this took place ten thousand years ago? How long until the lions associated humans, with the smell of fresh meat?

Your proposing an impossible scenario.

Some Africans can do that today, because man has killed nearly all the lions in Africa.
This was not the situation in the distant past, the open plains were a killing field for the lions. Especially slow moving humans carrying fresh meat on their shoulders.

 

[klutedavid]

Most of the time it is just inactive DNA.

You rightly claimed that all dogs came from one wolf gene.

Is that the same for all cats?

 

[bhsmte]

Just a very slow target for a pride of lions, even if they could.

Let's say they jogged five kilometers and killed the gazelle. They then need to cut off the meat from the carcass and carry it back to camp. How long given this took place ten thousand years ago? How long until the lions associated humans, with the smell of fresh meat?

Your proposing an impossible scenario.

Some Africans can do that today, because man has killed nearly all the lions in Africa.
This was not the situation in the distant past, the open plains were a killing field for the lions. Especially slow moving humans carrying fresh meat on their shoulders.

Humans were able to hunt down wild game, because humans sweat and sweating allows the body to cool and sustain long periods of movement. This is how hunter gatherers figured out how to tire out wild game, that would overheat and couldn't move anymore.

Quite certain many humans were killed by wild animals, but they could certainly beat them with stamina, which is why they survived.

 

[klutedavid]

And?

It's just interesting.

 

[klutedavid]

Humans were able to hunt down wild game, because humans sweat and sweating allows the body to cool and sustain long periods of movement. This is how hunter gatherers figured out how to tire out wild game, that would overheat and couldn't move anymore.

Quite certain many humans were killed by wild animals, but they could certainly beat them with stamina, which is why they survived.

Well the question remains, could humans have run around in the open, with a much higher population of lions. We are talking about a minimum of say five thousand years ago. I cannot see this scenario to be a valid scenario. I see a valid scenario, that early settlements of man were coastal, on rivers and lakes. Archaeology seems to support this idea, water and seafood were abundantly available.

Why would early man have spent the day, running around in front of a pride of lions?

The earliest known city in Egypt was Luxor, early man was not near the open plains, but on a river.

If you have evidence of early African settlements near the open plains, then I would like to see the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Well the question remains, could humans have run around in the open, with a much higher population of lions. We are talking about a minimum of say five thousand years ago. I cannot see this scenario to be a valid scenario. I see a valid scenario, that early settlements of man were coastal, on rivers and lakes. Archaeology seems to support this idea, water and seafood were abundantly available.

Why would early man have spent the day, running around in front of a pride of lions?

The earliest known city in Egypt was Luxor, early man was not near the open plains, but on a river.

If you have evidence of early African settlements near the open plains, then I would like to see the evidence.

Like I said, I would imagine some humans were killed by wild animals, just as some animals are killed lower in the food chain and others are not, that figure out ways to survive.

 

[klutedavid]

Like I said, I would imagine some humans were killed by wild animals, just as some animals are killed lower in the food chain and others are not, that figure out ways to survive.

I don't accept that Africa was where man first formed settlements and originated.

I need the evidence from archaeology of human settlements in Africa. Reaching back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. The oldest known human settlement is in Israel, i.e., the Sea of Galilee. I need the hard evidence, surely Africa must be littered with ancient cities and settlements. It just stands to reason!

 

[Speedwell]

I don't accept that Africa was where man first formed settlements and originated.

I need the evidence from archaeology of human settlements in Africa. Reaching back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. The oldest known human settlement is in Israel, i.e., the Sea of Galilee. I need the hard evidence, surely Africa must be littered with ancient cities and settlements. It just stands to reason!

You won't find "cities and settlements" from before the neolithic revolution, although man's history is older than that.

 

[juvenissun]

-_- what are you talking about? Job C is a product of the combination of the exact same coding from a and b put together (not exactly analogous to what happened in the all female lizard species, since they are half and half, not doubling up, but whatever). No one would think that the coding of job C was entirely independent of the coding for jobs A and B, because the similarity breaks the boundaries of coincidence.

To argue that we can't genetically determine basic lineage is to act as if paternity tests are entirely inaccurate. Is it possible for the results of a paternity test to be incorrect? Sure, but they are so accurate that viewing the results as if they are probably wrong is foolish.

Your story goes like this:
DNA a --> lizard A
DNA b --> lizard B
DNA (0.5a + 0.5b) --> lizard C

If you concluded that the existence of lizard C is because the change of DNA a (or b), then why don't we have
Lizard D --> DNA (0.3a +0.7b) ? [genetics modification in lab]

You can not think the existence of human is caused by the appearance of human genetics. It can go backward.

I am repeating my argument. You did not get what I said.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well the question remains, could humans have run around in the open, with a much higher population of lions. We are talking about a minimum of say five thousand years ago. I cannot see this scenario to be a valid scenario. I see a valid scenario, that early settlements of man were coastal, on rivers and lakes. Archaeology seems to support this idea, water and seafood were abundantly available.

Why would early man have spent the day, running around in front of a pride of lions?

The earliest known city in Egypt was Luxor, early man was not near the open plains, but on a river.

If you have evidence of early African settlements near the open plains, then I would like to see the evidence.

From the way you're describing it, it almost seems like you believe that sub-Saharan Africa was just a sea of lions.

 

[Brightmoon]

[QUOTE


The concept of an "incomplete" feature is a creationist misunderstanding of evolution. At no point is it claimed that fish evolved feet via having a useless half foot first. Rather, they start as simplistic, complete structures,




[/QUOTE]

 

[Brightmoon]

Oops pressed wrong button.
lobe finned fish evolved walking limbs to clamber thru mud and move it around . They did not evolve on land . Modern frog fish do similar things to look for food. We know they didn’t evolve on land because these early fish with legs couldn’t support their weight out of the water. The gut wall was too thin and their guts would have fallen out. These Fishopods lived in shallow water

 

[USincognito]

Nor a lion in sight either.

But, according to your earlier posts, there were lions every 100 feet in Africa pouncing on and devouring everything in sight.

 

[USincognito]

I don't accept that Africa was where man first formed settlements and originated.

Too bad science and facts aren't based on whether klutedavid accepts them or not.

I need the evidence from archaeology of human settlements in Africa. Reaching back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. The oldest known human settlement is in Israel, i.e., the Sea of Galilee. I need the hard evidence, surely Africa must be littered with ancient cities and settlements. It just stands to reason!

Actually genetics shows that Africa is the cradle of humankind. As far as archaeological evidence goes, there are millions of Acheulean flint and obsidian tools used by Homo ergaster between 1.7 million and 300,000 years ago.

 

[Speedwell]

But, according to your earlier posts, there were lions every 100 feet in Africa pouncing on and devouring everything in sight.

As someone already pointed out, Lions, like other predators, are highly opportunistic. They prefer the easiest, least dangerous prey; the slowest, the weakest, the least dangerous. In order to survive they have to take prey, but they also have to avoid injury to themselves. Anyone who has watched a cat toy with a mouse will have observed how they behave with prey that they haven't been able to kill at first attack. A lion may be able to kill a man with a spear but not without risk of serious injury. Lions are not stupid and in ordinary circumstances will prefer some other, less dangerous prey.

 

[Shemjaza]

I said, a rock can die (be poisoned).
Any question?

Yes, you said that, but you didn't explain it in a way that was either coherent or useful in anyway.

You need to understand just pronouncing things and telling people that you are smarter, wiser and more enlightened then them and expecting them to agree will only have the opposite effect when what you say seems silly, inconsistent or ignorant.

It's certainly possible that all scientists, natural historians, pre-schoolers and most theologians are wrong about rocks being alive... but it's certainly an extraordinary claim that needs more then a superior hand wave as justification.