The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Justatruthseeker]

No, its clear (as it always has been) that the only reason you oppose the ToE is your religious belief.

Some of us appose it because the science doesn't live up to the propaganda.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation seen within the species. neither the Asian nor the African evolves into the Afro-Asian.

In fact the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African and the Afro-Asian appears suddenly in the record where it never existed before.

Just like in the fossil record where every creature found remains the same from the oldest one found for that type to the youngest one found for that type. then just as we observe in real life, new forms appear suddenly where they never existed before. You just cant tell what mated with what from a pile of bones.

We can apply this to all life on this planet. Minus the incorrect species classifications.

Lions mate with Lions and produce only Lions. Tigers mate with Tigers and produce only Tigers. only when Lions mate with Tigers does variation occur in the species - the Liger.

Grizzly mates with Grizzly and produces only Grizzly. Polar bear mates with Polar bear and produces only Polar bear. Only when Grizzly mates with Polar bear does variation occur in the species - Grolar.

They have simply incorrectly classified them as separate species. Both in the here and now and in the past.

And finches. You don't even want to get into finches, that's an evolutionists worst nightmare....

 

[VirOptimus]

Some of us appose it because the science doesn't live up to the propaganda.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation seen within the species. neither the Asian nor the African evolves into the Afro-Asian.

In fact the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African and the Afro-Asian appears suddenly in the record where it never existed before.

Just like in the fossil record where every creature found remains the same from the oldest one found for that type to the youngest one found for that type. then just as we observe in real life, new forms appear suddenly where they never existed before. You just cant tell what mated with what from a pile of bones.

We can apply this to all life on this planet. Minus the incorrect species classifications.

Lions mate with Lions and produce only Lions. Tigers mate with Tigers and produce only Tigers. only when Lions mate with Tigers does variation occur in the species - the Liger.

Grizzly mates with Grizzly and produces only Grizzly. Polar bear mates with Polar bear and produces only Polar bear. Only when Grizzly mates with Polar bear does variation occur in the species - Grolar.

They have simply incorrectly classified them as separate species. Both in the here and now and in the past.

And finches. You don't even want to get into finches, that's an evolutionists worst nightmare....

....

Learn the science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

....

Learn the science.

Learn how to refute claims, which you failed to do, because in reality you can't.

 

[VirOptimus]

Learn how to refute claims, which you failed to do, because in reality you can't.

No, really, learn the basics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, really, learn the basics.

That's the first claim from those unable to defend their stance.

The second will be to start the ad hominem attacks.

Standard evolutionary tactics.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's the first claim from those unable to defend their stance.

The second will be to start the ad hominem attacks.

Standard evolutionary tactics.

No, you really need to if you want to debate the science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, you really need to if you want to debate the science.

Seems no evolutionist can actually present any science to defend their religion... Such a shame, was looking forward to some content instead of boring rebuttles as per standard tactics......

 

[PsychoSarah]

Seems no evolutionist can actually present any science to defend their religion... Such a shame, was looking forward to some content instead of boring rebuttles as per standard tactics......

One word: Triops.

 

[VirOptimus]

Seems no evolutionist can actually present any science to defend their religion... Such a shame, was looking forward to some content instead of boring rebuttles as per standard tactics......

Science <> religion.

 

[stevevw]

No, its clear (as it always has been) that the only reason you oppose the ToE is your religious belief.

Lets go along with your claims for a moment. How does that make the scientific support for what I say wrong. For example

The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lets go along with your claims for a moment. How does that make the scientific support for what I say wrong. For example

The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

That's what I tried to tell them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

They just didn't want to hear that it was two to three times greater in magnitude in it's effects than mutation and selection.

 

[Speedwell]

Lets go along with your claims for a moment. How does that make the scientific support for what I say wrong. For example

The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

And, of course, you read it in a reputable scientific journal. How does that square with your claim that these people are "outsiders" disputing evolution against the resistance of evolutionary biologists?

 

[stevevw]

Dawkins is an atheist; he doesn't believe in divine purpose--which is an unfalsifiable proposition not part of the theory of evolution anyway.

Are you saying that atheists can be biased in their views as well as religious people. I thought it was only religious people, what a surprise.

Because it's true. It's just not science--science is not the only way of knowing.

I agree that it is not the only way of knowing and we should not only depend on the science for faith. But at the same time, Paul says we need to test things and do research to make sure we are not deluding ourselves. The point is the verse is saying that God can be seen in what he made. His fingerprints can be seen.

Because faith is what you believe without necessarily having scientific evidence. Traditional Christians don't require scientific evidence of God. That seems something only Fundamentalists require.

There is a difference between only believing because you need scientific evidence and having your faith strengthened by the science. I agree that ultimately God cannot be verified by the science and therefore it is our faith that guides us. But a blind faith is also a problem that can lead to wrong beliefs. I think the notion of faith being without evidence is a bit misleading. We are all scientists to a point in that when we look at the universe, nature or life we intuitively know there is a lot of science in what we see even if we do not understand the details. Therefore people of faith know that God the the God of the physical laws as well. For scientists like Francis Collins, they see God in the science and this strengthens their faith.

God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
Francis Collins

 

[stevevw]

How do you know it's purposeless? Because Dawkins, and atheist, says so?

That is what has been determined by the scientific revolution. It was a response to the Churches position that everything was the result of a creator God. It brought a new way of thinking that explained everything in scientific materialism (naturalism). First was the Copernican Revolution and then the Darwinian revolution. Darwins theory of Evolution is a part of this revolution in thinking where naturalistic, random and spontaneous causes can explain how life evolved without a creator God, "design without a designer". Dawkins is just a modern day proponent of this continued revolution in thinking.

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer
Darwin's greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin's discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567

 

[VirOptimus]

Lets go along with your claims for a moment. How does that make the scientific support for what I say wrong. For example

The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

I have already adressed your misconceptions. Your articles does not support your claims. Write the authors.

 

[Jimmy D]

Seems no evolutionist can actually present any science to defend their religion... Such a shame, was looking forward to some content instead of boring rebuttles as per standard tactics......

Your claims have been refuted scientifically ad nauseum yet you plough on regardless, ignoring any evidence that runs contrary to your ideas.

No one takes you seriously at this point so why bother?

 

[Jimmy D]

That's what I tried to tell them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

They just didn't want to hear that it was two to three times greater in magnitude in it's effects than mutation and selection.

Has any ‘evolutionist’ ever disagreed with the findings of that paper?

No, the disagreement is with your strange and illogical insistence that hybridisation is the only mechanism for evolutionary change.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you essentially present philosophy mixed with scientific principles based on conjecture.

You may throw in some actual scientific facts, but rarely. It is mostly philosophy of scientific principles.

And of Stevevw's fine posts many are attacking them. It has edged on already sided (bias) posters.

Meanwhile, the very foundation that proves evolution has occurred on Earth is missing.

Many are Skating how there is zero fossil record evidence showing evolution of life occurred on Earth.

That there is zero fossil sequences showing/demonstrating one lifeform morphologically changed into another lifeform over time.

The sedimentary column shows zero proof that evolution has ever happened. Zero fossils in a sequense showing creatures step by step morphologically changed into another lifeform.

The fossil recored proves otherwise, that evolution never happened. Zero physical examples of happening. Zero fossil record evidence.

All we see in the fossil record, as per OP, is speciation. God over time made species on Earth, with zero evidence evolution occurred. That is what He physically left for us to observe.

As a reminder, the first two paragraphs of the OP are as follows:

"One worldwide evidence in the sedimentary rock record is how fossil lifeforms show mature Speciation, and zero fossils that disproves Speciation.

In the fossil record, out of billions of fossils unearthed, is zero transitional fossils. Zero fossils that by morphological change prove evolution - evidence of one lifeform changing into another higher lifeform."

Evolution has zero fossil record evidence. This fact shows evolution is based on conjecture, not demonstrated evidence.

What is observable in the fossil record is God's use of Speciation. He Created lifeforms on Earth through use of Speciation. This is very clear in the in the fossil record we have in hand today, year 2018.

Why must you lie so often!?

 

[Ophiolite]

No, it's not his faith which is deficient, it's his theology.

Good point. That both makes sense and is a more compassionate view. Thank you for the insight.

 

[stevevw]

And, of course, you read it in a reputable scientific journal. How does that square with your claim that these people are "outsiders" disputing evolution against the resistance of evolutionary biologists?

What do you mean by outsiders. These are mainstream scientists (biologists) disputing the standard theory and say it needs changing and other scientists (biologists are disagreeing and saying the traditional concept is OK and should not be changed.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080