Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TOE is supported by the Fossil Record
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 1 of 17 (473526)
06-30-2008 1:05 PM


In the topic on front loading, Randman states:
quote:
Evos do indeed find studies on living animals as evidence for common ancestry. The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality which is one reason they have started harping on the claim the fossil record isn't the primary evidence for evo theory, though they would claim it isn't that the fossil record contradicts evo theory (though it does) but that it is too incomplete or some fossil rarity claim.
This is a misstatement of the fossil record and the claims of evolutionary biologists. The emphasis on molecular biology in recent years is because it is such a powerful tool that can analyze genetic evidence - not because the fossil record is inadequate. Fossils record morphological characters. Genes control morphological characters among many other things - so of course we would want to see what the genes tell us about evolution. I would like Randman or someone who supports his claims to provide arguments and evidence as to how "the fossil record contradicts (evolutionary biology) models in reality."
Edited by deerbreh, : correct quote codes

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:13 PM deerbreh has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 17 (473532)
06-30-2008 1:18 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 17 (473753)
07-02-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by deerbreh
06-30-2008 1:05 PM


be specific
On point of order, the reason we were discussing the molecular data on the prior thread is that was what the thread was about, and specifically it was posited it supported front loading. There was no mistatement to suggest evos came to believe in Darwinism based on molecular data, as your OP suggests.
On the question of the fossil record, you claim the TOE is supported by the Fossil Record. Ok, as a challenge, please show a sequence of, say, 10 speciation events or more leading to the origin of higher taxa in the fossil record. All I am asking is that the process Darwinists claim occured be shown in the fossil record, actual evidence, not inferred evidence.
Assuming that cannot be done, can you show maybe 4-5 in sequence?
How about any sequences, and by sequences, I don't mean you arranging fossils with 99% of the sequences left out and claiming you have shown the steps.
What is your explanation for the steps in Darwinism, which is gradualistic even if a punctuated equilibrium model, not being seen in the fossil record?
Assuming you provide an explanation, please cite comprehensive, peer-reviewed studies backing up your explanation or admit they've never been done. Specifically, if your claim is fossil rarity, I would expect at a minimum for some studies quantifying that. For example, with whales and their supposed, envisioned evolution, I would expect there to be numbers given for estimates of actual whale fossils, estimates of how many "forms" probably more at the genera level it would take to evolve from, say, A to B, from land animals to whales or some other snapshot of evolution covering a period of time with creatures known to fossilize.
There should be specific predictions and estimates then on what we should expect to see. Let's suppose for example, we look at horse fossils. I think there are something like 28 horse species that have left fossils. Assuming some have not left fossils, there should be more than 28 species, maybe much, much more, to evolve a horse species into the other 28 horse species. In other words, you could assign a metric per so much evolution defined as morphological changes, it would take a range of so much new forms, species or genera.
What is the likelihood those forms will be represented?
Let's say it would take, for example, an estimated 5000 forms to evolve a land mammal to a whale and that includes branches that died out, and we have, say, 8 potential forms in the fossil record......That indicates a very low likelihood of fossilization.
Problem is we have thousands of some of those forms. That doesn't fit with Darwinism because how can you claim fossil rarity and yet thousands of fossils are found of some species, but let's say evos say, fossil rarity does make sense.
Prove it. Show where this basic claim has been substantiated with actual peer-reviewed studies.
Also, you claimed the belief in a universal common ancestor stems from the fossil record. Please substantiate that.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by deerbreh, posted 06-30-2008 1:05 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 07-02-2008 6:26 PM randman has not replied
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 07-02-2008 7:33 PM randman has not replied
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 07-03-2008 2:25 AM randman has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2008 4:43 AM randman has not replied
 Message 10 by deerbreh, posted 07-05-2008 8:07 PM randman has not replied
 Message 16 by BeagleBob, posted 09-07-2008 4:27 PM randman has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 4 of 17 (473755)
07-02-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
07-02-2008 6:13 PM


Re: be specific
No-one is going to do that for you, Randman, because what you're asking for is an amount of evidence and data far beyond that that can reasonably be reproduced, or described, in an internet forum.
But, if you're genuinely interested, start by reading Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution by Robert L. Carroll. It's around 400 pages long, and covers a small part of what you're asking for; if you want to go through its references that's probably another 10000 pages. Again, that's only a tiny, tiny part of the published research and evidence for evolution but it should give you a good start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:13 PM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 17 (473767)
07-02-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
07-02-2008 6:13 PM


Re: be specific
randman,
There should be specific predictions and estimates then on what we should expect to see.
Go for it.
Please provide said predictions & estimates. I will hold you to your own standard & expect peer reviewed publications.
If you can't provide them, then you are pissing in the wind as regards the level of resolution we should see in the fossil record.
Perhaps you could explain how such resolution can be achieved on a continent such as North America in the Triassic (for example), lasting millions of years, when for all that time, for well over 95% of the continental area we have no Triassic rocks at all, let alone fossiliferous ones.
Meaning we have no idea what critters walked & evolved over the vast majority of North America for 40 million years.
Triassic Rocks - 248 to 208 million years ago
And this is if we assume that all of the shaded areas possess sediments for the entire period, & not a couple of million years here, & a couple of million there.
Anyway, I look forward to those peer reviewed & therefore supported expectations.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:13 PM randman has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 17 (473811)
07-03-2008 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
07-02-2008 6:13 PM


No out of place fossils
randman writes:
Problem is we have thousands of some of those forms. That doesn't fit with Darwinism because how can you claim fossil rarity and yet thousands of fossils are found of some species, but let's say evos say, fossil rarity does make sense.
Is there a randman law in the I.D. fantasy world that all extinct species must have existed in the same numbers? Concentrate that unique and wonderful mind of yours on this problem:
A future fossil hunter digging up fossils from our own times finds a thousand wildebeest fossils, but no giant pandas. Why?
And while you're at it, if it's not too much strain on the brain, you could think about why there aren't any fossils that falsify common descent.
In a designed world, there certainly should be such things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:13 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2008 4:48 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 17 (473824)
07-03-2008 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
07-02-2008 6:13 PM


Re: be specific
On the question of the fossil record, you claim the TOE is supported by the Fossil Record. Ok, as a challenge, please show a sequence of, say, 10 speciation events or more leading to the origin of higher taxa in the fossil record.
This barely means anything. "A sequence of 10 speciation events leading to the origin of higher taxa"?
However, if you were writing meaningful English, you'd probably be asking for, let us say, the fish-tetrapod progression represented by Eustheonpteron, Panderichthis, Elpistostega, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Densignathus, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Whatcheeria, Pederpes, Greerepton, Crassigyrinus, Baphetes, Balnerpeton, Dendrepton, Silvanerpeton, Proteogryrinus, and Eoherpeton. Feel free to look 'em up. Don't even get me started on reptile-mammal intermediates or we'll be here all night, but you could start here if you were actually remotely interested, which you aren't.
In return, would you like to show me all the scientific evidence that God was outwitted by a talking snake? Cheers.
Let's say it would take, for example, an estimated 5000 forms to evolve a land mammal to a whale and that includes branches that died out, and we have, say, 8 potential forms in the fossil record......That indicates a very low likelihood of fossilization.
Problem is we have thousands of some of those forms.
If you have thousands of land mammal-whale intermediates, would you mind lending a few of them to paleontologists?
If, on the other hand, you're talking complete rubbish, would you like to stop?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:13 PM randman has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 17 (473825)
07-03-2008 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
07-03-2008 2:25 AM


Re: No out of place fossils
A future fossil hunter digging up fossils from our own times finds a thousand wildebeest fossils, but no giant pandas. Why?
Because pandas are an evil lie put about by God-hating atheists like PZ Myers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 07-03-2008 2:25 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 9 of 17 (473827)
07-03-2008 5:32 AM


Even before The Origin of Species was published scientists saw signs of evolution in the fossil record.
Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages.
From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ”progress’ going on.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods, Michael Benton, Ph.D., vertebrate paleontologist
And in The Origin of Species Darwin stated that if inconsistent findings in the paleontological record were to be found, it would falsify his theory. Yet there haven't been any.
Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected.
All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods, Michael Benton, Ph.D., vertebrate paleontologist
Here's a good page to look at Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Info on transitional sequences in the fossil record from fish to amphibian support ToE.
Creationists claim that there are no transitional forms. This claim is made over and over as if it were a mantra. The plain fact is that there are transitional sequences but they never discuss the details.
Fish to Amphibian Transition
The findings in the fossil record over the years have continued to support an evolutionary account for the life on Earth.
Today, many of the gaps in the paleontological record have been filled by the research of paleontologists. Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, found in well-dated rock sequences, represent successions of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions.
The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found.
Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution
Religious non-scientists seem to say that the fossil recod doesn't support the ToE, but scientists consistently say that it does. I think trusting the expertise of scientists over non-scientists makes sense.
Does the fossil record support the idea of biological change over time (biological evolution)? Yes.
Baylor University Dept of Geology
BTW, Baylor University is a private Baptist university.
About Baylor | Baylor University
Dr Prothero said the creationists are ignoring a wealth of transitional fossils found since Darwin's era which provide proof of the evolutionary process.
We now have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils.
Creationists 'peddle lies about fossil record'
Time and again the most rigorous studies conducted involving the fossil record indicate evidence for evolution.
The most scientifically rigorous method of confirming this prediction is to demonstrate a positive corellation between phylogeny and stratigraphy, i.e. a positive corellation between the order of taxa in a phylogenetic tree and the geological order in which those taxa first appear and last appear (whether for living or extinct intermediates). For instance, within the error inherent in the fossil record, prokaryotes should appear first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc., as shown in Figure 1. Contrary to the erroneous (and unreferenced) opinions of some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Wise 1994, p. 225-226), studies from the past ten years addressing this very issue have confirmed that there is indeed a positive corellation between phylogeny and stratigraphy, with statistical significance (Benton 1998; Benton and Hitchin 1996; Benton and Hitchin 1997; Benton et al. 1999; Benton et al. 2000; Benton and Storrs 1994; Clyde and Fisher 1997; Hitchin and Benton 1997; Huelsenbeck 1994; Norell and Novacek 1992a; Norell and Novacek 1992b; Wills 1999).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Paleontologists, the people who actually study fossils, sure seem to think the fossil record supports ToE.
Edited by Deftil, : Added more info about Baylor U

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2008 11:30 AM Deftil has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 10 of 17 (474143)
07-05-2008 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
07-02-2008 6:13 PM


Re: be specific
Lots of wild claims and demands here. First of all it is not up to me to substantiate that the TOE is supported by the fossil record. That is accepted by all evolutionary biologists. The only people claiming otherwise is creationists and all you are really doing is restating the tired old creationist claim that there are no transitional fossils. Here is one link refuting that claims. Plenty there if you really want to know the subject. Way too much to try and argue here and unnecessary as this is considered a "settled science" among evolutionary biologists. CC200: Transitional fossils
Randman, I started this thread to give you the opportunity to document your claim that the fossil record does not support the TOE. You are making the extraordinary claim here so the burden of documentation is on you. Your response confirms my opinion that you have no intention of trying to defend that claim but only want to "stir the pot" and make demands for documention of what is "settled science" to everyone but creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:13 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2008 8:12 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 11 of 17 (474146)
07-05-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by deerbreh
07-05-2008 8:07 PM


Re: be specific
Randman, I started this thread to give you the opportunity to document your claim that the fossil record does not support the TOE. You are making the extraordinary claim here so the burden of documentation is on you. Your response confirms my opinion that you have no intention of trying to defend that claim but only want to "stir the pot" and make demands for documention of what is "settled science" to everyone but creationists.
That's what creation "science" is all about, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by deerbreh, posted 07-05-2008 8:07 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by deerbreh, posted 07-07-2008 11:35 AM Coyote has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 12 of 17 (474261)
07-07-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
07-05-2008 8:12 PM


Re: be specific
Well the fossil record is hard to reconcile with a literal reading of Genesis so it is understandable that creationists need to try to poke holes in the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2008 8:12 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Cparkinson, posted 08-07-2008 4:32 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Cparkinson
Junior Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 13 of 17 (477782)
08-07-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by deerbreh
07-07-2008 11:35 AM


Re: be specific
hello everyone,
Well, this seems to be the only one that makes some sense here. I think archeology has made some amazing finds in the last 50 years or so. Fossils do show a remarkable time line:"Hence, fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch to the oldest from the Archaean Eon several billion years old." That's what Wikipedia has to say at least.
This may be pertinent to add here: creation science rebuttals Seems to negate the idea of fossils not predating creation.

vacation bible school

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by deerbreh, posted 07-07-2008 11:35 AM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 08-07-2008 5:12 PM Cparkinson has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 17 (477785)
08-07-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cparkinson
08-07-2008 4:32 PM


Re: be specific
Cparkinson,
The article does nothing to counter the observed evolutionary pattern in the rocks.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cparkinson, posted 08-07-2008 4:32 PM Cparkinson has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 15 of 17 (477853)
08-08-2008 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Deftil
07-03-2008 5:32 AM


Baylor's Geology FAQs
Thanks to Deftil for providing a link to Baylor University's Department of Geology.
And thanks to Baylor's geologists for posting an FAQ page that should be required reading for fundamentalists the world over:
FAQs about Geology and Science
An authoritative introduction to the basics by geology professionals. Bravo.
____

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Deftil, posted 07-03-2008 5:32 AM Deftil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2008 6:04 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024