Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1056 of 1163 (795627)
12-14-2016 5:03 PM


TOPIC
I'd just like to second Taq's questions.
What range of organisms does creationism predict, and why? Why shouldn't we find rabbits in terrestrial Cambrian deposits if creationism is true? Why shouldn't we find grasses in Devonian strata if evolution is true? Why shouldn't we find flowers in those same Devonian strata if creationism? Why shouldn't we find wooly mammoths in Jurassic sediments if creationism is true?
Where are these predictions that creationism supposedly makes?
We have enough threads where we can brag, and have bragged, about the triumphs of evolution. This thread is about the Great Creationist Fossil Failure. If you feel that you've run out of excuses, say so instead of trying to change the subject.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(2)
Message 1060 of 1163 (795632)
12-14-2016 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 5:16 PM


Re: TOPIC
Due to the evidence favoring creationism and a later flood as reflected in the geology of the PT boundary which shows this strong transgression and regression at the PT boundary.
And does not show a global flood.
Here's the Hallam and Vail curves, this is what science actually shows.
And what about the fossils? Your excuse was that all the fossils that you need to exist were hiding under the Siberian traps where no fossils can be found, and then it was pointed out that we're knee-deep in Paleozoic fossils from that exact area.
And it is evolutionists who have the excuses ...
Again, you're lying to us about what we say. We don't need excuses. We say: WE HAVE THE FOSSILS, WE WIN.
... it is creationists that have the evidence of the sudden appearance of multiple organisms fully formed as expected.
As I pointed out in post #944, even if that wasn't a lie, it would be inconsistent with the creationist fairytale. It would, in fact, be one of the things you'd have to explain away. What's your excuse?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:16 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1072 of 1163 (795657)
12-14-2016 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 5:11 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
Creationism predicts that all kinds were created at one moment in the past. Therefore all current organisms will be found through all layers in approximately the same form as modern organisms.
And this is not the case. Therefore (as surveyed in the OP) creationists have come up with some extremely bad excuses for why it is not the case. To this you have added your hiding-under-the-Siberian-traps nonsense, which also doesn't work. So Creationism stands refuted. Good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:11 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1076 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 5:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 1092 of 1163 (795689)
12-15-2016 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1087 by mindspawn
12-15-2016 8:09 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
This is an evidence based website. I posted my evidence about an earlier "boreal cradle" of life showing traces of angiosperms, ie an environment like today in the Paleozoic. I admitted my lack of mammal/bird fossils but pointed to where they will be found, giving my reasons.
And we find abundant well-preserved Paleozoic fossils in that very place, but none of them are mammals or birds, so would you like to think of another excuse?
All you can do is appeal to the fact that evolution is widely accepted.
No, we appeal to the fossil record, genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography and behavioral ecology. Please do not lie to us about our own arguments; this does not deceive us, it merely exposes your profound dishonesty and the weakness of your case.
If the evidence is so widespread, where is it?
It lies in the fossil record, genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography and behavioral ecology.
You guys are posting pictures of so-called transitionals without detailed explanations.
But with the names of the species. Do you need someone to teach you how to use google? How far do you think we are required to indulge you in your desperate cowardly attempts to evade the actual topic?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1087 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 8:09 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 1094 of 1163 (795693)
12-15-2016 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1091 by mindspawn
12-15-2016 9:20 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
The difference with the Australian marsupials is that they are genetically proven to have a recent common ancestor.
Y'mean, like chimps and humans?
And then when we look at extinct hominids, if the difference between them is less than that that exists between marsupials, you can't say that they're too different to be related. If you did, you would be using a criterion for detecting unrelatedness which you know to be false and worthless, since you know of a case in which it fails.
Additionally even though they have rapidly diversified, there are obvious common features.
There are also obvious common features between hominids, you great buffoon. That's why scientists identify them all as hominids, rather than saying "This one's a hominid, this one's a hedgehog, and this is probably some sort of duck."
Even you, mindspawn, even you should be able to see some of the common features.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1091 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 9:20 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 1095 of 1163 (795694)
12-15-2016 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1081 by mindspawn
12-15-2016 5:39 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
Instead of a pretty picture, a list of actual species over time that show changes beyond a clade.
There is no such thing as "changes beyond a clade". In your determination to speak of things of which you are totally ignorant, you are now using words the meaning of which you do not know.
What is outrageously ridiculous is your claim that evolution exists without any proof.
We have given you proof, you goddamned liar.
The more you guys mock the obvious location of a biome similar to ours in Siberia, the more I mention .... ahem...... the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION.... hehe
And the more we show you both pre-Cambrian bilaterian fossils, and the more we show you Paleozoic Siberian fossils, proving that everything you're saying about the fossil record is dumber than a sack of hammers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 5:39 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 1096 of 1163 (795696)
12-15-2016 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1076 by mindspawn
12-15-2016 5:14 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
That is a bit rich coming from evolutionists who are the masters of bad excuses for their lack of fossils
You goddamned liar, I have proffered no such excuse. I say: WE HAVE THE FOSSILS. WE WIN.
The Siberian highlands is the niche environment most obviously matching today's common environment. So of course that is the place to look for ancient representations of modern organisms.
And since we find abundant well-preserved fossils in Siberia, and none of them are those requisite to your fantasies ... YOU DON'T HAVE THE FOSSILS. YOU LOSE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1076 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 5:14 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1099 by edge, posted 12-15-2016 10:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1125 of 1163 (795825)
12-18-2016 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1123 by mike the wiz
12-17-2016 5:47 PM


Re: clades vs kinds
So how do we logically falsify evolution? Heads it's evolutionary divergence. (homologies) Tails it's evolutionary convergence (homoplasies)
Well, you'd have to start by knowing what you were talking about.
But what if the actual conclusion is that God as a Creator, simply does not obey any rules. What if for example, God wanted a marine-version of a tortoise simply because He liked the idea, and so He created a turtle?
And so it would just be a huge massive coincidence that all God's whims happened to give support to evolution?
The most amusing example of an analogous feature is the Ichthyosaur, especially when we hear Gould himself admit to the 1-in-a-billion odds, it seems, and that is the problem, the coincidence-list for evolution seems to be astronomical, some forty convergent types of eyeballs I heard from Dawkins.
What do you mean by "forty convergent types of eyeballs"? N.B: you did not hear that from Dawkins.
"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothingthe ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor - Gould.
This is exactly what we would expect --- identical selection pressures produced analogy but not homology. For example, if you looked at the tail of an ichthyosaur instead of merely talking nonsense about the subject, you would see that its caudal vertebrae go into the lower lobe of its tail, unlike any fish.
(Oh look, it seems Gould has used the word, "hydrological", according to Dr Adequate I guess that means Gould was not a "real scientist", if we are to appreciate what Dr A said in message one of this thread.)
I have noted your exceptionally poor reading comprehension before. At no point did I say that real scientists do not use the word hydrological.
CONCLUSION: it seems to me "analogues" are just excuses for why divergence can't solve the problem. How can we scientifically test whether natural selection can converge and break odds that end up an astronomical figure?
Just because your conclusion is as nonsensical as your premises, that doesn't mean that it would follow from them.
---
I notice that you have strictly avoided all mention of the topic of this thread. I realize that it would be embarrassing for you to discuss it, but is it not almost equally embarrassing for you to come on this thread and avoid it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1123 by mike the wiz, posted 12-17-2016 5:47 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1126 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 6:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(1)
Message 1141 of 1163 (795851)
12-18-2016 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1126 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 6:40 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
I thought, "real scientists" use the term, "hydraulic sorting"? But Gould the non-creationist, used the term, "hydrological", so this is an example of a double-standard fallacy I have astutely spotted, so naming it "poor reading comprehension" I imagine even the evolutionists must see is a ridiculous use of epithets. This is like saying that because I can prove I am 6 foot 10 inches tall that I am, "a midget".
Obviously there is nothing wrong with my reading and everything wrong with your comment. Why not simply admit you made a mistake for once in your life, and didn't know what you were talking about.
Your poor reading comprehension continues to embarrass you. I said that scientists tend to prefer the phrase "hydraulic sorting" to the phrase "hydrological sorting" I did not say that they prefer the word "hydraulic" to the word "hydrological" under all circumstances; they use the latter word where it is proper to do so --- for example, when it is not qualifying the word "sorting".
I understand that according to evolution, wings in birds, and bats would be examples of analogous structures but the pentadactyl limb would be examples of homologous structures. Can you please now explain where I have made an error ...
Wings in birds and bats are both homologous and analogous, obviously. But it was your apparent belief that concepts such as homology and homoplasy render evolution unfalsifiable that made me think that you were deficient in understanding.
Lol. No arrogance here from Dr.A. then. I guess it was Moses I learnt it from, by reading Genesis.
Who knows where you get your ideas from? If I was asked to speculate, I might allude to the back end of one of the larger domesticated Bovidae.
The Ichthyosaur though homoplastic to a dolphin, had more of a barrel-like body with a whip-tail, the use of the vertebrae BY DESIGN made it a slow swimmer with the tail being more useful, from what I read. It seems highly reasonable that there would be support for the tail, because fish are not built the same. So you are arguing that evolution should give an ichthyosaur fish features and should not. Heads if it's homoplastic fish-features, evolution wins, tails if it's NOT fish features like the tail bone, evolution wins again, because evolution predicts both.
If you thought about it for a few seconds, you would see that hydrological factors impose selective pressures on the external but not the internal form of an animal. So we expect fish, dolphin, ichthyosaurs to have similar streamlining, but not to be more internally similar than is necessitated by their common vertebrate ancestry.
LOL!
Thus essentially you are reasoning in a circle. That some features are because of divergence, but the features are the prediction of divergence, which evidence it, but then the evidence becomes the prediction, pointing back to divergence, which points to the features, which points to divergence, which points to the features.
I can accept that if evolution were true there may be homologies, but it counts as falsification of evolutionary divergence if there are homologies you re-brand, "homoplasies". After all, a marsupial isn't in the same clade as a placental, so it's a matter of picking and choosing which type of evolution isn't it. If there are homoplasies that break evolution, you re-brand them convergent evolution.
You haven't answered my challenge which is a logical one. If we find ANY new creature, how do we falsify evolution? If we can call some features "unique" such as the pelican spider's head shape, or "homoplastic" or, "homologous", since it seems none of those things can falsify evolution then that covers heads, tails and the side of the coin.
Evolution would be falsified by finding a greater degree of homology than could be explained by common ancestry: for example if the bill of the duck-billed platypus was in fact identical to the bill of a duck, or if bats, in other respects being mammals, had wings just like birds.
(There are of course lots of other potential ways to falsify evolution, but this seems the most relevant to the errors expressed in your post.)
---
I note that you have still not mustered up the courage to approach the actual topic. Perhaps in your next post you will overcome this timidity, but I shall not be holding my breath.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1126 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 6:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 1142 of 1163 (795852)
12-18-2016 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1126 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 6:40 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
d.p.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1126 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 6:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1144 of 1163 (795856)
12-18-2016 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1135 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 8:38 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Is it parsimonious to explain the general stasis of forms by invoking millions on non-existent transitional species?
Or is it more parsimonious to explain designer-necessity as a real life problem for intelligently designed things, WITHOUT invoking millions of entities?
It is parsimonious to explain "the general stasis of forms" as something creationists have made up. This explanation involves the postulation of no new nor unobserved entities or mechanisms, since creationists observably make stuff up all the time.
So if I have a bat with echolocation, and an oil bird with echolocation and a whale with echolocation, is it there by evolution simply by the assertion it was converged upon by evolution, or is the feature there because of design-necessity, which also explains why all of the intermediate forms for oil birds, bats, and whales, are conspicuously absent.
Since they are not all absent, the "creationists-made-that-up" hypothesis is once more superior.
That's all I have to say for now at EvC forum.
You're going to run away without addressing the topic at all?
I precisely PLAN my measure of activity so as it favours my position rather than yours.
I will concede that evading the topic and running away will cause you less embarrassment than sticking around and discussing it. But you would embarrass yourself still less by not posting at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1135 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 8:38 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 1156 of 1163 (797535)
01-23-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1154 by creation
01-23-2017 3:20 PM


I must say, that I haven't heard those two arguments from creation believers lately. Hydro sorting, or 'creatures running uphill to escape the Flood'.
Really.
Have they replaced it with some new excuses I could take a look at, or have they just given up discussing the subject out of sheer embarrassment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1154 by creation, posted 01-23-2017 3:20 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1157 by creation, posted 01-23-2017 4:11 PM Dr Adequate 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