Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 1:26 AM
389 online now:
Coyote, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 385 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,966 Year: 16,572/21,208 Month: 2,461/3,593 Week: 574/882 Day: 6/86 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Record Mistakes and Why They Don't Hurt Evolution
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 1 of 13 (729506)
06-12-2014 6:44 PM


I'm new here and all, but this has been digging into me for a while. I just wanted to go over some of the more famous talking points about the fossil record on the creationism side… and then show why they don't actually do anything to the ToE.

Let's start with the 'vertical whale'. Despite the name, this widely-known ancient whale fossil is actually about 40 to 50 degrees off its horizontal axis, and was found buried in the strata. Also, despite claims that it stretched through multiple strata layers (as evidence for the Noachian Flood), it was actually parallel to the strata formations! The strata had been folded into a new angle with the skeleton inside; thus, the odd angle of the fossil. Source material originated here; Ackerman, P. D., 1986. It's a Young World After All, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, pp. 81-83.

Then, the supposed falsification of the Dinos-to-birds theory with the discovery of a hadrosaur with skin intact, but no feathers, and buried in strata along garfish and turtles, in what appeared to have initially been water (again, support for the Noachian Flood). It was no surprise to scientists, though, since hadrosaur skin had been discovered intact by 1998! Furthermore, nobody actually thinks HADROSAURS were the ancestors of birds. The Saurischian dinos are theorized to have evolved into birds. Finally, and this may be a bit of a shocker, it's actually no surprise we found this one in water with garfish and turtles. Hadrosaurs are usually found in ancient riverbeds, simply because they were inclined to stay near water, and garfish and turtles have been around just as long as dinosaurs! Source for this claim; Vision Forum, Inc., 2003. Creation expeditions team discovers giant duck-billed dinosaur: Home-school paleontologists strike pay-dirt again (press release, 22 July).

These two debunkings are just the beginning. If anyone has a supposed anomaly in the fossil record, I'd be happy to dig up the facts and see just what they say.


Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2014 9:57 PM TryingToBeLogical has responded
 Message 5 by herebedragons, posted 06-13-2014 7:52 AM TryingToBeLogical has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 13 (729508)
06-12-2014 7:05 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Fossil Record Mistakes and Why They Don't Hurt Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18653
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 3 of 13 (729512)
06-12-2014 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TryingToBeLogical
06-12-2014 6:44 PM


Welcome to the fray TryingToBeLogical,

These two debunkings are just the beginning. If anyone has a supposed anomaly in the fossil record, I'd be happy to dig up the facts and see just what they say.

You might be interested in contributing to: Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-12-2014 6:44 PM TryingToBeLogical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-13-2014 5:59 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 4 of 13 (729519)
06-13-2014 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
06-12-2014 9:57 PM


Thank you, RAZD. I'll check it out, see if it might be a good idea to join in the discussion. Also, the quotes function is pretty useful... thanks!

Edit: Scratch that, the discussion has ended. No reason to join in, really. I'll see what I can do on this thread, maybe quote a few from yours...

Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Realized linked thread had ended


Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2014 9:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1328
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 5 of 13 (729521)
06-13-2014 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TryingToBeLogical
06-12-2014 6:44 PM


Welcome TTBL,

A quick suggestion. You should provide a source(s) for you rebuttal information. I would do it this way:

Let's start with the 'vertical whale' [source of claim]. Despite the name... thus, the odd angle of the fossil.

[source(s) of rebuttal]

Provide a url link when possible. See help with dBcodes for how to format links.

You referred to them as "some of the more famous talking points," however, I had not heard these particular claims before. It would be interesting to read more about them.

If you have more, keep 'em comin'

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-12-2014 6:44 PM TryingToBeLogical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by dwise1, posted 06-13-2014 10:34 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 6 of 13 (729532)
06-13-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by herebedragons
06-13-2014 7:52 AM


I had encountered that creationist whale fossil claim back around 1990. They provided a fair amount of detail and cited only one source from a trade journal, "Industrial Chemist". I found that source at a local university and it said nothing but that an entire whale fossil had been found near Lompoc and that it was in a layer of diatomaceous earth. Maybe there was mention of that layer being tilted, but certainly nothing about the fossil being vertically placed; I am remembering back about 24 years. Apparently the creationist source had been extremely inventive in creating this claim ex nihilo.

I got an update to that story through talkorigins.org (A Whale of a Tale). That article also has a bibliography.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by herebedragons, posted 06-13-2014 7:52 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-13-2014 10:56 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 7 of 13 (729535)
06-13-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by dwise1
06-13-2014 10:34 AM


Mm. The facts were manipulated; despite creationist claims that it was vertical, on its tail, it was about 50, 40 degrees off-horizontal. But so was the strata layer, so... that's a thing.

Have you heard this one? I picked up this argument off http://www.icr.org/...ansitional-form-archaeopteryx-wont-fly, one of your standard-issue creationist blog posts. Apparently, there are creationists who deny that the Archaeopteryx was a transitional species between reptiles and birds, and was, in fact, fully avian, barely showing any signs of being reptilian. I actually own a book, the Dinosaur Factfinder - your standard issue dino database, really - I'm quoting from it now.

Archaeopteryx may well be the most famous fossil animal of all. It is described in nearly every book about the history of life and evolution because it is thought to be a perfect example of a "missing link," between the reptiles and the birds. This means that it shows primitive features of the reptiles, such as teeth, claws on its hands, and a long bony tail, as well as advanced features of the birds, such as feathers and a wishbone. It is the oldest known bird because of the last two characteristics. Archaeopteryx could probably have flown about as well as a modern bird, but it is not certain whether it flew from tree to tree, or over the ground.The first fossils of Archaeopteryx were found in 1961, and since then a total of six skeletons have been found, the last in 1987. They are preserved in a fine limestone which used to be quarried to produce printing plates. The limestone was laid down in a warm lagoon near to land, and it preserves many fossils beautifully: jellyfish, worms, complete fish, flying reptiles with their skin, and Archaeopteryx.

The post was an excerpt from a book back in 1989. This book is for kids, actually, and was first published in 1992. Three years, and it seemed childrens' education was advancing faster than adults'.

The funny thing is, I checked the web, and found creationist articles actually saying that Archaeopteryx wasn't a bird at all, but an altered Compsognathus. Based only on the fossil in the British Museum.

Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Fixing quotes

Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Adding information


Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by dwise1, posted 06-13-2014 10:34 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2014 11:17 AM TryingToBeLogical has responded
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-13-2014 11:56 AM TryingToBeLogical has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 8 of 13 (729536)
06-13-2014 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by TryingToBeLogical
06-13-2014 10:56 AM


The funny thing is, I checked the web, and found creationist articles actually saying that Archaeopteryx wasn't a bird at all, but an altered Compsognathus. Based only on the fossil in the British Museum.

I've seen the same person say both in consecutive sentences. Here's Jolly F. Griggs, in his pamphlet Evolution 101:

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wick-Ramasinghe have made a strong case for fossil forgery in their book Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird. This reviewer of the book was convinced. Taking the fossil at face value, the fossil was a complete bird, not half reptile and half bird.

So it's a "complete bird" and it's a Compsognathus with feathers stuck on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-13-2014 10:56 AM TryingToBeLogical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-13-2014 11:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 9 of 13 (729539)
06-13-2014 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2014 11:17 AM


Well, whaddya know. Looks like not only can creationists not agree with each other, they also can't agree with themselves. Though perhaps this guy was trying to discredit evolution by pointing out the suspected forgery, then score a second point with the absurd claim that the real fossils demonstrate that Archaeopteryx was fully bird. Who knows?

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2014 11:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13187
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 10 of 13 (729543)
06-13-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by TryingToBeLogical
06-13-2014 10:56 AM


TryingToBeLogical writes:

Apparently, there are creationists who deny that the Archaeopteryx was a transitional species between reptiles and birds, and was, in fact, fully avian, barely showing any signs of being reptilian.


Well, showing "any" signs of being reptilian would be what makes it transitional, wouldn't it? A muderer could be described as somebody who hardly ever kills anybody.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-13-2014 10:56 AM TryingToBeLogical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-13-2014 1:03 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 11 of 13 (729550)
06-13-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
06-13-2014 11:56 AM


True. I suppose the redefinition of 'transitional' into something that is clearly impossible to define as one or the other is one of the key points of creationism.

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-13-2014 11:56 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 12 of 13 (729555)
06-13-2014 2:44 PM


Unfossilized Dinosaurs
One of their weirder things about creationists is their pretense that there were recent (non-avian) dinosaurs. What makes it weirder than most creationist nonsense is that it's entirely pointless, we could find the Lost World of Conan Doyle tomorrow and it wouldn't affect evolution in the slightest. They don't seem to have grasped that there are some true propositions about biology that aren't the theory of evolution; the fact that non-avian dinosaurs are extinct is one of them.

This blunder leads them expend their energy on pretending that there are unmineralized dinosaurs in the fossil record. There seem to be two sources for this. The most recent is Mary Schweitzer and her work in extracting soft tissue from inside dinosaur bones. But the soft tissue was mineralized, they had to demineralize it, as Schweitzer states in her paper:

Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience.

The second and earlier source of this nonsense stems from a fossil found in Alaska. It took me some time to track down the origin of the error, because 99.9% of creationists don't give references. But eventually I traced the error to creationists' inability to understand this paper.

Here we can see a creationist talking nonsense about it under the title "Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones", which they aren't. An examination of the creationist nonsense reveals the exact source of the error. The creationist writes:

"The quality of preservation is remarkable. The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise display little permineralization, crushing, or distortion." Like to take a guess what "little permineralization" means? For bones that are claimed to be at least 65 million years old, that has to be remarkable indeed, doesn't it?

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? She took a guess what "permineralization" means, instead of spending five seconds looking it up on google.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-14-2014 7:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 13 of 13 (729592)
06-14-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2014 2:44 PM


Re: Unfossilized Dinosaurs
Love of the Higgs Boson. Why would you try to attack evolution with that? That's the same damn thing as the 'if x evolved from y, why is there still y' argument, only with a bunch of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo behind it, as well as a few (possibly deliberate) misunderstandings. After permineralization, you're basically looking at pure mineral replicas, but if it stays out of groundwater, a fossil can avoid the process. I looked it up, says that permineralization is the process of organic tissue being filled in with medals carried in by water. So, this just means it stayed dry, intact, and unbent. Remarkable for something so old, but not really proof of it being recently dead.

Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Clarification


Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2014 2:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017