|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But it's nothing more than normal microevolution that occurs all the time ... Some discussion of ankylosaur tails here.
Ankylosaur tail clubs are odd structures, odder than they are usually given credit for. They represent substantial modifications to two different skeletal systems — the endoskeleton, in the form of the caudal vertebrae, and the dermal skeleton, in the form of the caudal osteoderms. The centra of the caudal vertebrae lengthen but stay robust, and the neural arches undergo huge changes, such that the prezygapophyses, postzygapophyses, and neural spine become a robust, V-shaped structure on the top of the centrum, and which creates a tightly interlocking vertebral series with almost no flexibility. We call this the handle of the tail club. The osteoderms at the tip of the tail smush together and two of them become huge: although the tail club knob is small in some species, there are colossal knobs exceeding 60 cm in width. The ankylosaur tail club represents one of the most extreme modifications to the tail in terrestrial tetrapods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It would help to have more information about the size of these creatures etc They're big.
but in any case you'd have to show ... No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How does a bunch of pictures lined up in a row which are said to be millions of years apart have anything to do with evolution? It's what we'd expect to see if there had in fact been evolution.
Is not it just just as plausible that they were created as they are found in different parts of eternity? Well, I'll say to you what Kingsley said to Gosse: "I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What 'you people' are you referring too? Creationists. There may be a few honorable exceptions, but by and large creationists try to use the flood to explain, not what the geological record looks like, but what creationists think it looks like. But it doesn't look like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
None of your speculation explains why there's all this evidence for evolution lying around. You want another run at that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am a Creationist. You are a Creationist unless you believe the Universe has always existed. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What speculation. You know, the stuff you made up?
I used all your your evidence for evolution. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have the same fossil record that you do. I just read it differently than you do. In that you ignore it and I don't. This is different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What could that conceivably have to do with fossils?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
We have to have a universe because No universe, no fossils. Well, you could say that of anything. Chocolate pudding, for example. But I wouldn't gratuitously drag the origin of the universe into a discussion of chocolate pudding.
All kinds of creatures beginning to exist gives you all the fossils you have existing in the museum's today. But why did it give us those fossils, the ones that look exactly like evidence for evolution? I have an explanation: they were actually caused by evolution, which is why they appear to have been caused by evolution. What's your explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If the fossil record is not just a collection of fossils, what is it? Their stratigraphic relationships, too. In the same way, your body is not just a collection of bones, organs, soft tissue, etc, it's an arrangement of them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Why SHOULD they ever be found together? Because water is no good at taxonomy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Anyway, I find myself having the same sorts of questions I had about Dr. A's skulls. The supposed evolutionary sequence is just too pat, too "just so" to be realistic. You're complaining that the evidence is too good?
Where are the "errors," or at least the deviations from the too-too perfect path from the reptilian to the mammalian adaptation? Well, I could show you lots of fossils of things that don't have any surviving descendants. Look, here's one.
It's called a Spinosaurus, it's a complete dead end. No mammals, no birds, and indeed nothing at all now living is descended from it. Happy now?
Doesn't evolution ever make mistakes? But of course you'll say it does, all the time, and yet this sort of perfect sequence is what you give for evidence. That, Faith, is because if I want to demonstrate a reptile-to-mammal transition or ape-to-human transition, I'm not going to throw in the Spinosaurus, which is not part of that transition and so does not demonstrate it.
How did we get this neat progression of skulls from small cranial capacity to large human cranial capacity with such plausible morphological gradations from one to another of the skulls? Because humans evolved from apes.
How did we get this neat progression of types of middle ear bones as described by Mr. Hertzler, in what sounds like a similarly smooth gradation from one type to another, each perfectly fitted to its reptilian or reptilian-mammalian or mammalian host? Because mammals evolved from reptiles.
Dates. Sure seems open-and-shut when you've got each skull dated, each example of reptilian or mammalian ear bones dated, and they all so nicely follow one from another just as evolution says they should. It's the dating of the specimens that seals the deal, right, so unless one wants to accuse all researchers in the area of outright fraud the dates have to be accepted don't they? How can one answer that? First, I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, but there is certainly something odd about how this all fits together that ought not to be taken at face value. Again, you're complaining that the evidence is too good. You could say that of pretty much anything that's true. "You tell me trees exist, and then you claim to 'prove' it by showing me thousands of trees. Doesn't it strike you as suspicious that there's so many of them? That I can not just see them, but actually touch them? Doesn't it all seem a bit too convenient?" So, what should it look like if there were trees? And what would it look like if evolutionists were right? Wouldn't there be intermediate forms --- such as we find? Wouldn't the dates roughly show the more basal forms to be earlier --- like they do? --- Your crap about genetics has been exposed and ridiculed on other threads. If you want to do this again, bump one of those threads, don't do it here. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, yes, I'm using "reptile" as a grade, to mean "the sort of thing where, if you saw one, you'd say "oh look, a reptile"."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I can understand how convincing this seems to be, with all the apparent gradations that would get from the reptilian to the mammalian jaw bones, with a therapsid type in between that appears to be a perfect transitional between the two, but it has to be pointed out that the whole scenario is assumed for starters. Evolution from one to the other is assumed, so the task is clearly laid out as speculating about how the one set of bones changed into the other type of bones. It's all quite plausible, if you assume evolution between the specimens to begin with. Well, you're exhibiting a classic creationist confusion between the evidence for evolution and evolutionary interpretation. To test evolution, we say: if it's right, we should be able to find things which look like an evolutionary pathway between A and B, in that they will have intermediate forms. When we've been convinced by this and other evidence that evolution happened, then we can look back at the same fossils and say: A did evolve into B, and these are transitional species. The first is a successful prediction, the second is interpretation. The fossil evidence for evolution is, of course, the successful prediction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024