Trilobite, Eyewitness to Evolution

No, that is not my reasoning and once again you are simply wrong; as wrong as the Bible is when it comes to reality.

We have seen from your participation here at EvC that your understanding of every single scientific subject you have argued about is not only miniscule, but completely incorrect.If God is guiding your understanding you should ask for your money back.I posted this information about a book that I really enjoyed and learned a lot from. If you don't want to read it or don't want to learn anything that's fine, but the subject has nothing to do with your god.

Your idea of where I'm wrong is of course where I disagree with the establishment view, and your idea of my "learning something" is of course to come to agree with the establishment view. I don't know what book you are talking about* but I've read plenty of books. God works on the knowledge we have, and if that knowledge is wrong, which a lot of it is on the establishment side as well as the creationist side, God is happy to show us if we ask. He can't correct everything at once, not because of any deficiency in Him, but because of our limited minds, so errors are going to remain.*Sorry, you mean the book about trilobites. I'm sure it has a lot of interesting information about trilobites that I COULD learn from, but I'm also sure that they don't prove evolution at all, they are merely subsumed under evolution as everything else is. Their changes from supposed time period to time period are on the order of everyday microevolution that occurs quite rapidly, within observable time frames. Millions of years is a ridiculous assumption based on the ToE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Spin it as you like, but millions of years is a conclusion based on physical evidence. Most is based on the physical sciences such as nuclear chemistry etc., not on the theory of evolution.The theory of evolution is derived in part from that evidence from the physical sciences.

The thing is the debate about evolution vs creationism is mostly about how the evidence is interpreted. Both sides point to the same evidence in many cases. I look at the diagrams that show the different kinds of trilobites placed in the fossil record and I see microevolution because of my understanding of the degree of change normal to microevolution; evolution sees millions of years and macroevolution because of other factors that have accumulated around the fossil record, Old Earth, and the other sciences you mention etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand that. But you must understand that of a wide range of interpretations, not all are of equal value.Those which account for all of the relevant evidence, and are contradicted by no relevant evidence are superior to interpretations that do not account for all the relevant evidence and that are contradicted by large amounts of evidence.That is the case we have here. It is only by denying and "what-iffing" a lot of evidence that you pretend to make it go away, and so hold to an interpretation that is contradicted by so much evidence.So your argument about different interpretations fails. You might as well hold to the "interpretation" that the moon is made of green cheese. Its an interpretation about as strong as is the creationist interpretation of real-world evidence.

Logical point, but I disagree. I do not think the evidence on the evolution side is all that good, I think I've answered a lot of it over time myself, it's just the accumulation of opinion that convinces people, or even just the habit of accepting it, not the actual merit of the evidence.For instance I think the idea that it could have been millions of years between two different kinds of trilobites is is nonsensical, but it would take more energy to make the case than I want to try to muster right now.I think the whole idea that you could get from the reptile ear to the mammalian ear is also nonsensical. The necessary increments of change, the multiple trial variations that would have to have occurred are actually simply impossible even if you had thirty billion years. But that is a problem for evolution in general, not any particular comparison of fossils in the fossil record. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, like always, you don't read a book on Trilobites, you just spread around a bunch of BS, and, as always, cannot support anything you say with evidence and, as always, you don't have the energy to bother.Then why don't you piss off, since you don't have the energy to bother? Who gives a shit what you can't be bothered to say? No meaningful argument but you just can't shut up.

Ya know, there's no point in reading a book on trilobites as far as the debate goes, though it may be interesting in itself. I'd just have to read around the evolutionist assumptions since I don't have any ambition any more to waste my breath on arguing to deaf ears. I've spelled out my arguments so many times I'm tired. So what? It's usually a side issue in a thread anyway. I'm challenged or asked questions so I answer them briefly so at least my view is sketched out, and that's all I'm up to. Nobody ever gives them a fair read anyway so why make the effort to think them through for the umpteenth time? I'll save them for a more concerted presentation at a later time and probably somewhere else. But somebody else might see the logic of it even if I don't spell it out. Not too likely I must admit, in this atmosphere which is so beautifully represented by you in this post, but you never know. Abusive ad hominems are SO EvC. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This topic has drifted off of its moorings and floated down the Hudson.
Lets get back to it.

quote:

---

I recently read Trilobite, Eyewitness to Evolution by Richard Fortey, 2001. I found it to be a delightful read and I learned all sorts of new things about these fascinating fossil creatures and the worlds they inhabited for 300 million years. Many thousands of species have been described and more are being discovered every year.
Trilobites have played a major role in paleontology and have been used as index fossils correlating the ages of geological layers around the globe.

​

They range in size from larger than lobsters to only a couple millimeters in length. As would be expected in a group that lasted that long the amount of variation is staggering; all the way from blind to calcium carbonate crystal for lenses in the faceted eyes, from plain and unadorned to covered with all sorts and shapes of spines.

​

Fortey writes as much about the world they live in as about the trilobites themselves, the other sorts of life they shared the seas with. He uses his own experiences on expeditions of discovery around the world to tell the stories of the fossils and the types and locations of geological formations they are found in today and what those habitats were like when these creatures lived.

​

He was a contemporary with Gould and Eldredge and describes how Eldredge's study of trilobites led him to the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium. He also explains Gould's errors in Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History in a way I had never understood before.

​

Fortey tells an engrossing tale and describes the same excitement of discovery that I have experienced and observed in my colleagues in the study of dragonflies.

​

I can recommend this book to anyone looking for an interesting read this winter.

---