The Smoking Gun!!!

[philadiddle]

The logic to this evidence is as simple as it gets. It's one of the facts that pushed me off the fence to fully put YECism behind me and embrace evolution as God's mechanism of creation. This evidence requires us to look at the predictions of the 2 views.

The Prediction of Evolution
According to evolution, all life came from one type of organism. This means, as it evolved and changed throughout history, there would be groups of species that evolved in a certain order, and would be found in the fossil record in that order. It's called a nested hierarchy. Here is a good link to learn more.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

The Prediction of YECism
According to the YEC model, all kinds (definition?) of animals were created at once. This means that we would find all kinds, mammals, reptiles, birds etc mixed up throughout the fossil record.

So here's the evidence. Do we find the fossils in a nested hierarchy or do we find them mixed up? According to every fossil i've read about, it's been found in a nested hierarchy. There are dinosaur graveyards used as flood evidence. Notice the graveyards don't have animals co-existing that would contradict evolution?

Here's the simple challenge, show me 1 fossil found out of order. The only thing i'll say is that polystrata fossils aren't out of order, so we can avoid that topic in this thread cause it always gets out of hand. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.

 

[laptoppop]

There are hundreds of examples. Evolutionary interpretation must explain each example seperately -- typically in terms of one layer thrusting relative to another (overthrust, underthrust) or landsliding. In some cases there is physical evidence (a mixing/grinding layer between the affected layers), while in other cases there is no such evidence.

Probably the biggest example is the Lewis Overthrust -- so named because it is assumed that the "older layer" got thrust over the top of the "younger" layer. There are huge problems with this interpretation -- the edge between the layers is often a knife edge - without signs of grinding and mixing you'd expect to find, and the area itself is HUGE - more than 300 miles long and 1550 miles wide.

The geologic column in the field is nowhere near as clean as it is in textbooks.

 

[Smidlee]

First Nest hierarchy wasn't predicted by evolution for this pattern was recongnized by creationist this long before Darwin. Also this smoking gun seems to shoot Neo-Darwinism is the foot as it was pointed out by Denton:
"If the hierachy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systerms naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity."
So if the oppiside was true then this would also be used as evidence, if not more so, for evolution. So evolution has a win/win situation so thus doesn't help prove it's case.

Also the fossil record itself shoot Darwinists is the foot since stasis seems to be the norm not the exception.

 

[random_guy]

There are hundreds of examples. Evolutionary interpretation must explain each example seperately -- typically in terms of one layer thrusting relative to another (overthrust, underthrust) or landsliding. In some cases there is physical evidence (a mixing/grinding layer between the affected layers), while in other cases there is no such evidence.

Probably the biggest example is the Lewis Overthrust -- so named because it is assumed that the "older layer" got thrust over the top of the "younger" layer. There are huge problems with this interpretation -- the edge between the layers is often a knife edge - without signs of grinding and mixing you'd expect to find, and the area itself is HUGE - more than 300 miles long and 1550 miles wide.

The geologic column in the field is nowhere near as clean as it is in textbooks.

Your entire example doesn't deal with evolution, it deals with geology. Remember, no all science that disagrees with a literal interpration of the Bible is evolution. It also includes geology, physics, and chemistry.

 

[random_guy]

First Nest hierarchy wasn't predicted by evolution for this pattern was recongnized by creationist this long before Darwin. Also this smoking gun seems to shoot Neo-Darwinism is the foot as it was pointed out by Denton:
"If the hierachy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systerms naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity."
So if the oppiside was true then this would also be used as evidence, if not more so, for evolution. So evolution has a win/win situation so thus doesn't help prove it's case.

Also the fossil record itself shoot Darwinists is the foot since stasis seems to be the norm not the exception.

It seems as if Denton doesn't understand what nested heirarchy means. Humans are apes, which are mammals, which are synapsids, etc.... Just like whales are mammals, which are synapsids, etc... There's your overlapping groups.

 

[Smidlee]

It seems as if Denton doesn't understand what nested heirarchy means. Humans are apes, which are mammals, which are synapsids, etc.... Just like whales are mammals, which are synapsids, etc... There's your overlapping groups.

Notice the word "Largely" in his statement. Of course there is some examples that can fix in two different classes.(thus classes are subject to human interpretion) Either way, Denton is right that if we found the exact oppiside this would help evolutionist (especially neo-darwin) case even more.
Everything is evidence for evolution.

 

[random_guy]

Notice the word "Largely" in his statement. Of course there is some examples that can fix in two different classes.(thus classes are subject to human interpretion) Either way, Denton is right that if we found the exact oppiside this would help evolutionist (especially neo-darwin) case even more.
Everything is evidence for evolution.

All life follows this example. Take birds. Birds are also theropods which are also dinosaurs which are also tetrapods which are etc.... All life falls under the twin nested heirarchy. What Denton wants (dog-cat or bird-reptile) would actually falisfy evolution because those violate the nested heirarchy. However, if we follow the branches of the tree of life, you'll see all sorts of creatures that have characteristics of two different groups (for example, theropods, which are bird-dino characteristics).

 

[philadiddle]

Probably the biggest example is the Lewis Overthrust -- so named because it is assumed that the "older layer" got thrust over the top of the "younger" layer. There are huge problems with this interpretation -- the edge between the layers is often a knife edge - without signs of grinding and mixing you'd expect to find, and the area itself is HUGE - more than 300 miles long and 1550 miles wide.

Your statement is a little vague. Could you please provide some sources for how questionable the overthrust is? It seems in my research that the layer of shale is the evidence of overthrust, because it would have such a fine grade to it. Here's a quote from this page.

"Gouge, a low-temperature type of fine-grained fault rock, is a product of near-surface faulting. Clays are a common component of fault gouge, but their genesis and importance is poorly understood. In part, the very small grain size that is inherent in these rocks hinders detailed study through approaches that have worked so well in medium- to high-grade fault-rocks (i.e., phyllonites and mylonites). Whereas it is generally assumed that gouge is a result of brittle deformation processes, we will focus on the role of clays in extensive mineral reactions and associated microfabric changes. One striking example is a profile of % illite in mixed-layer illite/smectite in shales beneath the Lewis thrust, Canada. "

 

[philadiddle]

First Nest hierarchy wasn't predicted by evolution for this pattern was recongnized by creationist this long before Darwin.

any references for that?

Also this smoking gun seems to shoot Neo-Darwinism is the foot

no it doesn't

as it was pointed out by Denton:
"If the hierachy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systerms naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity."

It would be much harder to argue the case for evolution if the lines were so indistinct that we found that mammals existed before the earliest dinosaurs. Denton doesn't make a good point.

So if the oppiside was true then this would also be used as evidence, if not more so, for evolution. So evolution has a win/win situation so thus doesn't help prove it's case.

No, the opposite of nested hierarchy would not be used as evidence for evolution, you've bought into a bad source. Please think logically about this, all you have to do is show an example of any animal above and below it's alleged ancestor.

Also the fossil record itself shoot Darwinists is the foot since stasis seems to be the norm not the exception.

huh?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So if the oppiside was true then this would also be used as evidence, if not more so, for evolution.

the opposite of nested hierarchy would not be used as evidence for evolution

The opposite of nested hierarchies is the well argued "swapped modules", reused pieces, or chimeras examples. All of which would falsify TofE immediately.

The interesting thing is that these things are both the way a good human designer designs and very natural ways that people have talked and written about life for millennium-griffens, saytrs, sphynix etc.

 

[EmmVeePee]

Here is a flaw...

You're using science to explain the supernatural.

 

[random_guy]

Here is a flaw...

You're using science to explain the supernatural.

No, we're using science to describe what we see in the natural world. Evolution could care less about Creationism or a Global Flood. Evolution is a scientific theory that stands independent of the Bible.

 

[theFijian]

First Nest hierarchy wasn't predicted by evolution for this pattern was recongnized by creationist this long before Darwin.

How can this be the case? I thought that Creationism rejected modern taxonomy in favour of Baraminology.

 

[philadiddle]

i don't get it. this is such an easy chance for YEC advocates to smite the ToE but there are no takers!!

 

[kenneth558]

i don't get it. this is such an easy chance for YEC advocates to smite the ToE but there are no takers!!

Wrong. You asked for one simple thing, and it is not something that would "smite the ToE". You don't seem to be prepared to deal with the differences between what a worldwide flood would do and what the ToE model would predict.

 

[artybloke]

the ToE model would predict

Theory of evolution? What's that got to do with a worldwide flood? Isn't that geology not biology?

 

[laptoppop]

The ToE is a model for explaining historical development which has implications across a wide number of fields, from biology to geology to sociology, etc.

 

[artybloke]

The ToE is a model for explaining historical development which has implications across a wide number of fields, from biology to geology to sociology, etc.

Only in the sense that everything connects to everything else. It still doesn't have any connection to geological changes such as plate tectonics, vulcanism or sedimentation of rocks. If anything, geology is more likely to affect evolution than the other way around.

 

[philadiddle]

Wrong. You asked for one simple thing, and it is not something that would "smite the ToE". You don't seem to be prepared to deal with the differences between what a worldwide flood would do and what the ToE model would predict.

I'd like to reply but you never really said anything. Could you elaborate so that we can discuss this?