Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1028 of 1163 (795586)
12-14-2016 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1025 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 3:33 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
Due to the organisms appearing fully formed.
That doesn't mean anything until you show us how you determine if a fossil is fully formed.
If there are no preceding intermediates of similar physiology.
How do you determine that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1025 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:33 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1053 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:44 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1032 of 1163 (795590)
12-14-2016 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1031 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 3:40 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
The point is that any large jumps in the opposite direction of the required transition eliminate that organism from the so-called sequence.
Why?
Why can't evolution produce a lineage where size moves up and down over time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:40 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1038 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:59 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1036 of 1163 (795594)
12-14-2016 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 3:49 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY RELIGIOUS DISRESPECT
mindspawn writes:
I am thinking of closing down this discussion in this thread, not because of your complete disrespect for my religion and for God, but because I keep repeating myself regarding evidence for creationism. My point on this thread has been made.
Until you show us the criteria you use to determine if a fossil has no ancestors, you don't have a point. All you have is denial.
Evidence favors creationism because most Phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian explosion without any evidence of intermediates.
How do you determine that a fossil has not ancestral intermediates just by looking at it? What about the intermediate hominids?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:49 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1037 of 1163 (795595)
12-14-2016 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 3:53 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
I wouldn't take it to that ridiculous extent. So this is a strawman argument.
Obviously physiology is relevant, your (unintentional?) implication is that physiology is irrelevant when discussing transitionary sequences.
I am still waiting for you to explain why evolution can not change size in both directions through time in a single lineage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:53 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1039 of 1163 (795598)
12-14-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1038 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 3:59 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
In theory it can produce moves up and down. But if you no longer have a transitionary sequence of physiology then what do you have left?
Why would a transition have to depend on size alone? Would you accept a trout as an intermediate between mice and humans because it is intermediate in size?
Don't you think it has a lot more to do with the shape of the bones and not just their size?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:59 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1042 of 1163 (795602)
12-14-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1040 by PaulK
12-14-2016 4:02 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
PaulK writes:
For a start, by definition, intermediates have to come in between. So if we are looking at intermediates between two forms there will be a first intermediate. Because it is the first there can be no intermediates preceding it, so it would be "fully formed". Does that disqualify it as an intermediate ? If it does, then you have ruled out the possibility of any intermediates. If it does not, then what is the point of the criterion ?
Or better yet, a species can go from fully formed to half formed simply because we find an earlier fossil with less derived features. Nothing about the morphology or physiology of the fully formed fossil would change, yet it would suddenly become half formed. That doesn't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1040 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2016 4:02 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1043 of 1163 (795603)
12-14-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1041 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:05 PM


Re: Evolution has theory, no evidence
mindspawn writes:
I see multiple species.
Just as you should see in a transitional series.
You claim they are not transitional. What criteria are you basing this on? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1041 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:05 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1051 of 1163 (795617)
12-14-2016 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1049 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:31 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
I think you are not facing the facts that often the changes to the physiology are HUGE with no evidence of ANY intermediates in these massive jumps in so-called evolution.
We already showed you that there are intermediates. You refuse to even address them.
You have decent logic to keep your head deeply buried in the sand in the face of contrary evidence.
You don't have contrary evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simple logic tells us this.
This is why I asked about Tiktaalik roseae earlier. That tetrapod intermediate was found only recently. Where was it for the last 150 or 200 years?
Regarding predictability, creationism predicts that modern organisms will increasingly be found in early layers, and early organisms will sometimes still be around in niche environments (like the coelecanth).
Then show us a mammal in the Cambrian. Show us a shark in the Cambrian.
In every geological period there is a large range of organisms as creationism predicts, so of course you will find some expected ones in each layer and think you are proving evolution.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:31 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:11 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 1054 of 1163 (795621)
12-14-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:38 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
Not at all. They can be related. But if you are relying on physiology as your evidence of evolution, and that physiology is inconsistent it ruins your evidence.
HOW IS IT INCONSISTENT??????
There is in some cases a recently adapted clade which can be convincing, other than that most evolutionary sequences are unconvincing because of these sudden jumps in physiology in one feature which ruins the sequence and seems to indicate a unique species.
What sudden jumps?
Here is a graph of cranium size for hominids, showing a nice steady increase through time:
All of the evidence you asked for, and you still deny it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:38 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1088 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 8:16 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1055 of 1163 (795623)
12-14-2016 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:44 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
One determines similar physiology between two fossils by looking at the physiology of both fossils. If one cannot find any earlier fossil of similar physiology then that fossil can be regarded as "fully formed".
Don't these hominid fossils have similar physiology to modern humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:44 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 1106 of 1163 (795708)
12-15-2016 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1057 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 5:11 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
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.
Then creationism is falsified because that is not what we see.
In the pre-Cambrian, alive organisms are less likely to be buried, it is the organisms of short life spans that would have been buried in precambrian strata.
Then why don't we see mammals with short life spans in pre-Cambrian strata? Why don't we see a single animal or plant fossil in the pre-Cambrian terrestrial strata?
Why don't wee see a single bony fish or shark in the pre-Cambrian? Why don't we see a single flowering plant or blade of grass in the pre-Cambrian? Why don't we see any leaves or modern plants at all in the pre-Cambrian?
The angiosperm non-aquatic low oxygen landscape of today was restricted to Siberian highlands in pre-flood times (before the transgression /regression of the PT boundary). This is the only early landscape that would explain the sudden later appearance of fully formed grasses and mammals (rabbits).
Sorry, but that is just made up. You need to present evidence.
You claim that these animals and plants were around in the Cambrian. We aren't talking about one or two species. We are talking about entire swaths of plants and animals. WHERE ARE THEY?? Show us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:11 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1107 of 1163 (795709)
12-15-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1084 by mindspawn
12-15-2016 6:15 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
So in fact you have no evidence for any predecessor to the trilobite.
We do have evidence for human predecessors, and you continue to ignore them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1084 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 6:15 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1108 of 1163 (795710)
12-15-2016 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1090 by mindspawn
12-15-2016 9:10 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution and Creationism is just a sorry joke
mindspawn writes:
The fact that most organisms appear fully formed supports creationism.
We already demonstrated that they aren't fully formed. We have shown you the transitional fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1090 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 9:10 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1109 of 1163 (795712)
12-15-2016 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1091 by mindspawn
12-15-2016 9:20 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
The difference with the Australian marsupials is that they are genetically proven to have a recent common ancestor.
The same applies to humans and other apes. In fact, I would bet $100 that chimps and humans share more DNA than a kangaroo and a wombat.
Additionally even though they have rapidly diversified, there are obvious common features.
You don't see any common features shared between chimps and humans? Really?

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 1149 of 1163 (795918)
12-19-2016 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1123 by mike the wiz
12-17-2016 5:47 PM


Re: clades vs kinds
mike the wiz writes:
The problem is, can't the clade, can't the cladogram exist, WITHOUT this ancestor?
The problem for creationism is that if there are no common ancestors then there is no reason we should see clades at all. A creator can mix and match any types of characteristics as the creator sees fit. You can have species with feathers, mammary glands, and gills. You can have other species with fur, flow through lungs, and a forward facing retina.
When we get to genetics the the problem grows even worse for creationism. There is absolutely no reason that a creator would need to change introns more than exons for different species, and there is no reason why introns should diverge at a faster rate than exons when compared to morphological differences. There is no reason why an orthologous ERV shared by many primate species should have more divergence between its 5' and 3' long terminal repeats than an orthologous ERV shared by just humans and chimps. There is no reason that the phylogeny of genes like Cytochrome C should match the phylogeny based on morphology.
There is absolutely no reason why we should see this matching branching structure of shared derived features and genetics if creationism true. Only common ancestry combined with evolution can explain it.
But what if the actual conclusion is that God as a Creator, simply does not obey any rules.
Then why do we see matching nested hierarchies?
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.
"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.
How strange then that the creator would give dolphins a fore limb that has more in common with humans than it does with sharks.
It is the human and dolphin forelimbs that share homology, not other fish species.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : 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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1151 by edge, posted 12-23-2016 9:07 AM Taq 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