Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're explaining how you think the layers of strata were formed. I was asking if you could explain why the fossils are distributed the way they are.
How does it explain why the fossil record is found in a nested hierarchy?I was, Probably my fault for not being more explicit, Liquefaction explains both adequately.
That doesn't explain all the rock layers. For instance, it doesn't explain the salt (NaCl) deposits under the Great Lakes. NaCl is very water soluble and would be dissolved in water (liquefaction) and thus should not be in a layer as a solid rock by itself.Liquefaction causes things to distribute into rock layers (and causes the rock layers themselves.)
Of course, what my point highlights is that IDers, despite their wails to the contrary, are basing ID on the Bible. Humans need to be specially created because the Bible says so. If they were working only from the science, then they would conclude that chimps were the ones specially created.What a terrible thing it is to have blinders superglued to your sideburns for three years.
How does it explain why the fossil record is found in a nested hierarchy?
That doesn't explain all the rock layers. For instance, it doesn't explain the salt (NaCl) deposits under the Great Lakes. NaCl is very water soluble and would be dissolved in water (liquefaction) and thus should not be in a layer as a solid rock by itself.
In terms of fossil distribution, this explanation does not work. For instance, humans and velociraptors are about the same size and human bones are even denser than velociraptor bones. Yet fossils of velociraptors are always found in sedimentary layers quite a bit lower than those where human fossils are found.
Yes, I am talking about their actual position in the earth. Can you name some fossils that are not found in a nested hierarchy?hmm, what exactly do you mean fossil record nested hierarchy?
If by nested Hierarchy you mean the hierarchy found in books. That comes from radiometric dating the rock a fossil is found in (that and index fossils which makes it a fair bit of circular reasoning), not it's position in the earth. no-where on earth is the entire fossil record.
Can you name some examples of out of order fossils?It is also important to note that fossils found outside of the evolutionary claimed order are discarded and that is a regular occurrence as modern mammalian have been found in the same rock as dinosaur fossils only the mammalian remains don't get recorded because that would violate evolution theory.
Yes, I am talking about their actual position in the earth. Can you name some fossils that are not found in a nested hierarchy?
Can you name some examples of out of order fossils?
So then name some fossils that were arbitrarily classified and really aren't in order. Vague assertions will get you no where.These are wrong questions. In classification, everything can be classified according to some criteria. That says nothing about their origin. Paleontology is simply a big scheme of classification. After the classification, it makes up a most reasonable explanation to be the origin, which is the evolution. It is why I don't believe that evolution is true.
So then name some fossils that were arbitrarily classified and really aren't in order. Vague assertions will get you no where.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are the fossils in the order evolution would predict? Does evolution even make a prediction? Is our classification system adequate and reliable or ad hoc and subjective? I just don't know what you're trying to say.None. A good classification does not do that.
Again, not a good question.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are the fossils in the order evolution would predict? Does evolution even make a prediction? Is our classification system adequate and reliable or ad hoc and subjective? I just don't know what you're trying to say.
Allopatric Speciation explains why species appear next to their ancestors. Basically when one small sample of a population is separated and undergoes change based on a new environment, the original population remains as they were. There's no stretch of the imagination here, we actually observe this happening.Very often fossils are not in the order evolution would predict. Rather it takes non plausible scenarios to justify many inconsistencies. You know many decendants have been found with their ancestors. Much of the evidence is based on a few chards of bone or a single bone that have been reconstructed into a complete organism with a whole life story and this is used as evidence.
Once one goes back past the family rank what you have is a variety of kinds, idealised from chards and single bones mostly, all thrown into one basket by some similarity. With homology found in non related species this is erraneous reasoning at its classification base.
Let's take tiktaalik for example, the great and irrefutable evidence of transition to land. Tetarapod footprints have been found that predate tiktaalik by 18my.
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News
To me these look like paw prints, similar to a bear. Paws belong to mammals.
Here is a link to a natural bear footprint. One can easily see the similarity to the 380my footprints.
BEAR FOOT PRINT
The fossil evidence is what is found. The interpretation of the evidence is subjective, not objective.
A 380 million year old mammal of course would totally falsify evolution as proposed. Therefore evolutionary researchers would never even entertain such a proposal.
Here is a link that discusses subjective taxonomic classifications.
The Fossil Record
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are the fossils in the order evolution would predict? Does evolution even make a prediction? Is our classification system adequate and reliable or ad hoc and subjective? I just don't know what you're trying to say.
So just to be crystal clear here, if we dated a layer of rock based on radiometric dating, we wouldn't be able to predicts what fossils (if any) we would find in it? Or, if we found fossils of a certain species in a rock bed we wouldn't be able to predict what other species we would find in there as well?...And also what species we wouldn't find in there?I am not sure what was I saying. I simply answered your question.
Like I said, prediction in paleontology is insertion in nature. We see A and C, then we predict B. There is no way it can predict A and H in a sequence of ... D, E, F ...
The current scheme of paleontology is reliable if there is no surprising discovery. In other words, it can not predict.
Allopatric Speciation explains why species appear next to their ancestors. Basically when one small sample of a population is separated and undergoes change based on a new environment, the original population remains as they were. There's no stretch of the imagination here, we actually observe this happening.
Whenever creationists link to something like "new discovery pushes back timeline for evolution of [X species]" they don't seem to realise that they are confirming that the theory of evolution goes where the evidence takes it, instead of interpreting things to fit an imovable religious view.
For your last link maybe you could pick just one example in there that you would like to defend. I'm not going to take the time to tackle every single assertion in there, I simply don't have the time, but I'd be glad to look at one or two points of your choosing.
So just to be crystal clear here, if we dated a layer of rock based on radiometric dating, we wouldn't be able to predicts what fossils (if any) we would find in it? Or, if we found fossils of a certain species in a rock bed we wouldn't be able to predict what other species we would find in there as well?...And also what species we wouldn't find in there?
"Why are there gaps in the fossil record?" This is often thought of as a question that is detrimental to evolution but in reality the fact that it is possible to ask the question is strong support for evolution.
There are two different ways that we could conclude there are no gaps in the fossil record:
1) Evolution is true and we have every fossil of every species to have ever lived.
2) Evolution is not true and there are no gaps because there is no succession of morphological features in the fossil record.
Of course, option 1 isnt reasonable, we would expect to have some breaks in the line since we cant expect everything that ever lived to be fossilized. But the real problem for creationists is that we have gaps in the fossil record, which means that fossils are found in the order that evolution would predict, and as expected not everything is fossilized.
My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?