The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Jjmcubbin]

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.

There is zero fossils that show life morphologically changed on Earth in sedimentary environments which show the Grand Picture of evolution of life from simple to complex.

All a paleontologist has is the observable evidence in the sedimentary rock layers srarted as the most simplest life and through time fossils that become more and more biologically complex over time and depositional history.

In Creating the Earth, God could have used geologic time to first Create simple life to exist and as geologic time progressed at select times Create more complex Species of life. And incresed the the complexity of each Species over geologic time, displaying an Earth with a fossil record we observe today - zero transitional fossils.

By scientific evidence the fossil record proves Speciations over time.

Get use to it, and start the change that Speciations was produced over time.

In another view, when Earth was Created it showed a natural history of Speciation of life over time, as He would have done if He chose geologic time and natural processes to develop the Mature Earth we now see. A Creation with an Apparent-Mature Age.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Transitional forms

 

[juvenissun]

No thanks. The scientific understanding of human origins is well documented.

I originally was addressing the OP when you chipped in suggesting that there are scientific reasons for rejecting the TOE. You have yet to demonstrate that this is the case, other than to state your ignorance of a particular area of study.

Who are these people rejecting the TOE for "other" reasons?

I raised a very simple example to argue against what you said. There is NOT enough knowledge to support TOE. You may find 1000 positive articles. But each article also raised at least one unsolved question. TOE is documented, but is NOT well supported.

The origin of human is a big unanswered question. If we do not know the origin of the most recent species, how much confidence would we have to talk about any ancient species?

 

[juvenissun]

A transitional fossil, is a fossil which meets following criteria:
- ...

You asked for it. It won't do you any good.

measurement of fossil B (transitional) = (measurement of fossil A + measurement of fossil C) ÷ 2

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I raised a very simple example to argue against what you said. There is NOT enough knowledge to support TOE. You may find 1000 positive articles. But each article also raised at least one unsolved question. TOE is documented, but is NOT well supported.

The origin of human is a big unanswered question. If we do not know the origin of the most recent species, how much confidence would we have to talk about any ancient species?

Yeah. See, the thing is... you're just flat out wrong. We do know the origin of humanity. You just want to pretend we don't so you can try and act smart. Classic case of ultracrepidarianism.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

.

 

[Phred]

There are many other reasons for one to reject evolution. It is not proven in sciences.

That would not be true.

 

[Phred]

I raised a very simple example to argue against what you said. There is NOT enough knowledge to support TOE. You may find 1000 positive articles. But each article also raised at least one unsolved question. TOE is documented, but is NOT well supported.

The origin of human is a big unanswered question. If we do not know the origin of the most recent species, how much confidence would we have to talk about any ancient species?

You have heard of genetics, right?

 

[Phred]

We do not know how did human rise.

Yes. We do.

 

[Phred]

You asked for it. It won't do you any good.

measurement of fossil B (transitional) = (measurement of fossil A + measurement of fossil C) ÷ 2

That may be the creationist version but nowhere in evolutionary terms is this nonsense relevant.

 

[Shemjaza]

You asked for it. It won't do you any good.

measurement of fossil B (transitional) = (measurement of fossil A + measurement of fossil C) ÷ 2

Can you describe an example?

I might be misunderstanding, but this seems like a transitional would need to be a mid point in every trait?

That seems unreasonable given that traits can change at different rates and sometimes oscillate.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You asked for it. It won't do you any good.

measurement of fossil B (transitional) = (measurement of fossil A + measurement of fossil C) ÷ 2

Example: (Fossil A has 4 legs & 0 arms + Fossil C has 2 legs & 2 arms) ÷ 2 = Fossil B has 3 legs & 1 arm

Got it.

 

[juvenissun]

Can you describe an example?

I might be misunderstanding, but this seems like a transitional would need to be a mid point in every trait?

That seems unreasonable given that traits can change at different rates and sometimes oscillate.

Good point, talking about rate.

Let's look at a faster rate of change (I am not sure how much is that), how about, for example, change the length of a bone 1 cm per million of years. Is that fast enough? In that case, do we expect to find a fossil which has a bone 0.3 cm, or 0.6 cm longer in the fossil sequence? Or would we see one bone in one fossil, and another bone about 1 cm longer in another fossil, but not seeing anything else in the middle?

If the rate is slower, then my argument would become stronger.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, you got it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You asked for it. It won't do you any good.

measurement of fossil B (transitional) = (measurement of fossil A + measurement of fossil C) ÷ 2

You know, if you don't know how to define what "transitional" means in the world of fossils, then just say so...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good point, talking about rate.

Let's look at a faster rate of change (I am not sure how much is that), how about, for example, change the length of a bone 1 cm per million of years. Is that fast enough? In that case, do we expect to find a fossil which has a bone 0.3 cm, or 0.6 cm longer in the fossil sequence? Or would we see one bone in one fossil, and another bone about 1 cm longer in another fossil, but not seeing anything else in the middle?

If the rate is slower, then my argument would become stronger.

50 million years ago: nostrils at the front of the face like most animals
25 million years ago: nostrils in the middle of the face
today: nostrils on top of the face


You may begin your excuses now for why this doesn't count for some magical reason.

 

[juvenissun]

View attachment 221306

50 million years ago: nostrils at the front of the face like most animals
25 million years ago: nostrils in the middle of the face
today: nostrils on top of the face


You may begin your excuses now for why this doesn't count for some magical reason.

What happened to those with nostrils in the middle of them? Do they ever exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What happened to those with nostrils in the middle of them? Do they ever exist?

The fossil skull is right in the picture.
It seems to me that the picture shows exactly that which you asked for: the gradual change of a specific trait, over time.

The oldest has nostrils in front of the face
The younger one has nostrils in the middle of the face
The current one has nostrils on top of the face.

In other words, here we have an example of a feature gradually changing... Nostrils moving from the front of the face to the top of the skull overtime, with "in between" examples.

So, what's your excuse for why this doesn't count, eventhough it is exactly what you asked for?

 

[juvenissun]

The fossil skull is right in the picture.
It seems to me that the picture shows exactly that which you asked for: the gradual change of a specific trait, over time.

The oldest has nostrils in front of the face
The younger one has nostrils in the middle of the face
The current one has nostrils on top of the face.

In other words, here we have an example of a feature gradually changing... Nostrils moving from the front of the face to the top of the skull overtime, with "in between" examples.

So, what's your excuse for why this doesn't count, eventhough it is exactly what you asked for?

It counts, but is not enough. I want to see how does one look like at 35 million years ago.
How would you think it look like?
Don't know, right? So the missing unknown IS a transitional fossil.

 

[Jimmy D]

It counts, but is not enough. I want to see how does one look like at 35 million years ago.
How would you think it look like?
Don't know, right? So the missing unknown IS a transitional fossil.

Wrong. If you're ignorant about something at least do a quick google search to see if your pronouncements are going to make you appear foolish.

What is your next excuse?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It counts, but is not enough. I want to see how does one look like at 35 million years ago.
How would you think it look like?
Don't know, right? So the missing unknown IS a transitional fossil.

There you have it folks, intellectual dishonesty at work.

Do you know what you just did? You engage in the classic fallacy where no transitional will ever be enough for you.

If we have only the 50 million year old skull and the current one, you point to the "gap" between both.

Then we find the 25 million year old skull, with the nostrils in the middle, nicely transitional between the 50myo and the extant whale, and what is your response?

That now, we have 2 "gaps": one between the 50myo and the 25myo, and another one between the 25myo and the extant one.

See, this is why nobody takes you seriously. You will never accept any fossil as being "transitional". Because everytime a gap is filled, you'll point out that there now are 2 new gaps.

It's simply ridiculous.

If I would show you another skull of 35my, you'll ask for one of 40 myo or 10myo or whatever.

It's an exercise in futility.

Now, where did those goalposts go?