|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I have never heard of that theory.
It was proposed on another board a year or so ago. Do you think your theory is better? ETA: Oh, I forgot to tell you ... you were supposed to laugh ... Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Semantics aside, evolutionists claim that a trilobite evolved from a LUCA. In fact they claim all organisms evolved from a LUCA, that is what LUCA means.
But you simplify. A rhetorical tool, but still a fallacy. The evidence overwhelmingly supports a LUCA. That is the theory. No one is saying that it is absolutely proven.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Are you calling me a liar because I used the word "suddenly" instead of the phrase "seemingly rapid"?
Well, geologically speaking, tens of millions of years is a short period of time, but in human terms, it doesn't 'seem rapid' at all.I don't see the wording as being that great a difference. Your argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. Evolution is flawed because of the "seemingly rapid" appearance of organisms without intermediates. A weakness in the theory which Darwin recognised. Except to a YEC, I suppose,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I'm happy with the evidence of the real scientists. The timeframes and evolutionary assumptions are off, but the evidence itself does not favor evolution over creation, even though it is real mainstream scientists discovering such evidence. Yes rapid adaptation does exist, and so you will have occasional minimal evolution in clades, but there are such huge gaps for most organisms especially around the Cambrian explosion that evolution is nothing more than an interesting idea.
Not sure what you mean by 'gaps'. Are there no gaps in your recounting of the fossil record? Okay, so life diversified by 'adapting'. Can you tell us what Cambrian life form the giraffe adapted from?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
To explain the intermediates, some are, and some are not.
Ummmm, no ... That doesn't explain the intermediates.
Organisms do rapidly adapt. Sometimes a genetically related clade can be proven through DNA, with evidence beyond evolutionary assumptions. Other times the genetic basis is flimsy yet a clade is assumed.
Isn't 'genetically related clade' kind of an oxymoron? How do you prove genetic relation if there is no DNA? So, do you think that a clade is based on no evidence? It's just made up?
Sometimes fossils of various species are merely laid out in a sequence and intermediates claimed, which is laughable logic to a creationist because truly it proves nothing.
Well then, it's good that we don't do that.
You can lay a cod next to a coelecanth next to a mudfish next to a frog and assume evolution.
Once again, something that nobody does.
But when you lay a fish fossil from an old period next to a coelecanth from a younger period, next to mudfish from an even younger period, they evolved??? This can be highly amusing logic to intelligent creationists.
Perhaps you can explain this amusement. Perhaps you can explain where you came up with these strawman arguments.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Please explain why the theory of evolution would have any advantage over the concept of rare locations.
Isolated populations are part of the theory of evolution. I don't know what you are talking about here, other than the obvious fact that you are not well-versed in evolutionary theory.
I say creationism has an advantage, because we do observe organisms in rare locations that would be difficult to discover thousands of years from now.
Again, an understanding within the evolutionary community.
Yet evolution has far too many missing intermediate fossils to be the preferred theory.
Just how many do you need? Are you saying that we should just ignore the transitionals that we do have?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
when I referred to gaps, I am referring to a sequence of fossils over time, showing the trilobite evolving from a
So, you expect to have a complete lineage in every case. Do you have any idea how fossils are preserved and then discovered?
LUCA. Then every other organism on earth needs to have a sequence as well. Thus nearly all evidence of evolution does not exist, all you have is a few clades showing accurate signs of adaptation from a recent common ancestor.
Once again, I ask: what 'pre-boundary' creature did the giraffe adapt from? And you are one to talk about missing evidence. You say that it is all buried under the Siberian traps. Double standard much?
This is exactly what creationism would predict, clades recently adapting from the original kind.
Except that you do not have an original kind. You complain about our LUCA and yet you have nothing in its place.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Sure birds could fly to other highlands, but what are the chances of fossilisation if one did not make the crossing? Very small. Its unlikely we will ever find those one or two that did not make it. Other pre-boundary highlands? The Appalachian heights were completely eroded away since and so its difficult to find fossils that clearly originate from those highland sediments. Highlands were not as common in the pre-boundary world.
I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. Are you saying that because angiosperms might have had an isolated 'cradle' for their origin and emanated from there, that all ("pre-boundary") organisms originated in Siberia?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I thought that according to you the facts are all hiding under the Siberian Traps, explaining why we can't see any of them.
I've always thought it interesting how YECs can take something that we (theoretically) don't know (like what's beneath the traps), and turn it into a 'fact' that underpins a theory for all of life. Contrarily, the ToE takes what we do know and then explains all of the facts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
What is increasingly observed is that the spread of individual species throughout the geological column is wider than expected.
But not complete.
The coelecanth, angiosperms, etc etc. Most phyla existed fully formed during the Cambrian Explosion and still exist today.
What about all orders and classes? According to a strict biblical interpretation, cattle were created during the creation week and yet not a single mammal fossil exists prior to the late Mezozoic Era.
This observance of early fossils surprisingly found alive today, ...
Are you saying that you have a pet trilobite? Please give us a list of Cambrian creatures that are alive today.
... and also of modern organisms surprisingly found fully formed in the Cambrian will continue until the current geological column is seen for what it is.
Okay, where is the Cambrian giraffe? Where are you getting your information?
The current geological column is a mere reflection of common widespread conditions.
What do you mean?
More and more niche environments will be uncovered over time. I am stating the obvious, obviously we will discover more niche environments the more we dig.
And?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Creationism predicts that all kinds were created at one moment in the past.
This is not supported by the fossil record. We do not see mammals or dinosaur fossils scattered across the entire record.
Therefore all current organisms will be found through all layers in approximately the same form as modern organisms.
Then you are demonstrably wrong. There are no human fossils or artifacts until the very end of the geological record.
Late Permian to early Triassic layers are largely flood related. First marine reptiles then large flightless birds dominated the post-flood landscape (Triassic/Jurassic) until mammals spread out from the ark.
Wrong. The Permian to Jurassic periods were becoming more and more terrestrial. There was no P/Tr transgression-regression as shown in this data:
The Absaroka Transgression in North America was in full retreat since the early Permian and, until the Cretaceous, most sedimentary deposits were terrestrial.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
This is wrong. There is no "strong transgression" at the P/Tr boundary. See my previous post.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
You seem to dispute a widespread transgression/regression event at the PT boundary. The following link references many studies about this matter as listed below. The evidence shows that both occurred.
The evidence also shows that there was, at no point in time, of a global flood. There are repeated references in this paper to dry climates, deserts and terrestrial life. What you seem to refer to is a global tectonic event which simply isn't there. Any second- or third-order transgressions would, by definition, not be global. It was pretty apparent to me that the discussion was about minor fluctuations in sea level and not a biblical flood. The only real alternative you have is that the flood was so short that it left no traces in the geological record. This would be highly unlikely for what was supposed to be the most cataclysmic event in the history of the earth.
The bible indicates this widespread flood followed by a rapid regression, which explains the evidence.
Evidence that you have, so far, failed to produce.
Often a regression will cause a hiatus, washing away the evidence of the transgression, but generally the signs of both occurring are widespread at the PT boundary:
Again, these fluctuations are not global. Read the article. While they are going on you have arid conditions and deserts in the North American southwest.http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/...eminar/os03_04/herrmann.pdf Please note that in all of the reconstruction images, there is emergent land. What kind of a global flood is that?
quote:So the sea level changed with time. And it has been the subject of discussion. Why do we see conflicting evidence? Have you noticed that sea level is rising right now? Is God punishing us again? This has been going on for decades. So, why has catastrophic melting of glaciers and ice caps not already destroyed all life on earth?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
Well, you should know by now that any imperfections in a record that goes back billions of years gives YECs license to make up whatever they want. That's reeel science.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
It's quite revealing how your statement unintentionally illustrates the difference between actual science and YEC science:
Sure we are both missing fossils. You keep digging in the PreCambrian desperately hoping for some evidence that evolution exists, in the meantime I will watch the evidence to come out of the Siberian highlands. Deal?
Do you see the difference? Real scientists are out there working and gathering data. YEC 'science' consists of just hanging out and criticizing or denying the results. And, no. No one is 'hoping for evidence to support evolution'. There is already plenty of that. They are out there answering questions that YECs run away from.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024