Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 4:37 AM
255 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 251 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,369 Year: 5,192/29,783 Month: 1,124/1,467 Week: 10/311 Day: 10/51 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
130131
132
133134
...
140Next
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1966 of 2099 (831404)
04-16-2018 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1963 by Faith
04-16-2018 5:10 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:

The "coincidence" is an illusion.

If the fossils are distributed randomly as you claim then the actual physical order must be a truly massive coincidence.

Obviously a better explanation is needed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1963 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 5:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1968 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 5:33 PM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5572
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1967 of 2099 (831405)
04-16-2018 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1959 by Faith
04-16-2018 4:45 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:

THE PHYSICAL ORDER IS RANDOM, THE INTERPRETATION OF ORDER IN TERMS OF TIME AND RELATEDNESS IS ILLUSORY. WHY ON EARTH IS THERE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THIS OBVIOUS POINT?

I have no problem at all with this obvious point.

Science says there is an order in the fossil record, you say it's random. One side is right and the other wrong. This is a matter of fact not argument.

In the sequence

123456789

I claim order. I say that order is shown becase each successive number exceeds the last by 1. It is not random. This is random

622498251

You can easily see it's random compared to the previous sequence.

So instead of claiming randomness, just prove it. It should be easy. Find the tens of thousands of metaphorical rabbits. Or just a dozen or so. Where's the problem?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1959 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1968 of 2099 (831406)
04-16-2018 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1966 by PaulK
04-16-2018 5:21 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
It would only be a coincidence if there was a principle other than sheer imaginative classification of seeming similarity behind it, but complexity can't be the principle, since "early" fossils are sometimes much more complex than "later" ones. All you have to go on is appearance based on morphology and you impose the idea of genetic relatedness on that. Specific claims of genetic relatedness such as between reptiles and mammals should be recognized to be absurdly impossible because of the sheer numbers of changes that would have to take place all in concert to get a mammal from a reptile, though even getting one plausible stage of change in one organ would be probabilistically impossible. You'd need a billion billion years for such changes to occur and even that wouldn't be enough, not to mention that there are thousands of transitionals needed between any two Species to even begin to make an argument, and you have what, half a dozen between different Species at best? The "fossil order" is nothing but a testimony to the ability of human imagination to invent patterns that have no real meaning in reality.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1966 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2018 5:21 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1969 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2018 6:11 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1978 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2018 11:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5320
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 1969 of 2099 (831407)
04-16-2018 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1968 by Faith
04-16-2018 5:33 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Show your math, please.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1968 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 5:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1970 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 6:23 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1970 of 2099 (831408)
04-16-2018 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1969 by Coragyps
04-16-2018 6:11 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Sure, you want to get from the reptile ear to the mammal ear? Without even bothering with all the other changes in other body parts that would have to happen simultaneously? (But don't forget about that). There are many differences between the two ear structures, including needing an extra chamber by the time you finish, and completely repositioning all the parts in relation to each other, changing their relative sizes and so on and so forth. How are you even going to be sure of getting one increment of change in only one part that's the right place to begin the transition? Why wouldn't you get dozens of mistakes in size or direction or any other physical feature from generation to generation before you get even close to where you want to go? I'd have to pull up the images from the former thread on the subject to be more specific, but I'm sure you can follow the logic anyway. Do you want to get a human from something ape like? You have to change skull size and relation to spine, length of arms, shape of hands and fingers, position of facial features, etc etc etc and you have to have all these changes occurring at once. The only possible reason you could think any of this possible is that you see differences from generation to generation on the level of microevolution that are all built into the genome, but we're talking structural changes here which are on an entirely different level. You all don't even recogtnize changes built into the genome so you actually think such impossible transitions are possible. What an illusion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1969 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2018 6:11 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1979 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2018 12:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4059
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1971 of 2099 (831409)
04-16-2018 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1959 by Faith
04-16-2018 4:45 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
By definition order is not random. There is order therefore it is not random.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1959 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1972 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 8:15 PM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1972 of 2099 (831410)
04-16-2018 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1971 by JonF
04-16-2018 7:16 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Back to the usual semantic obfuscation. The order is only SEEMING order.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1971 by JonF, posted 04-16-2018 7:16 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1973 by jar, posted 04-16-2018 8:59 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1974 by JonF, posted 04-16-2018 9:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30144
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1973 of 2099 (831412)
04-16-2018 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1972 by Faith
04-16-2018 8:15 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:

Back to the usual semantic obfuscation. The order is only SEEMING order.

No Faith, the order is the order where the objects were found in reality.

That is just yet another thing that exists in reality and that is impossible to explain by your silly flud yet easily explained by the conventional theories instead of Cult Fantasies.

We have a little list:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1972 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 8:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4059
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1974 of 2099 (831413)
04-16-2018 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1972 by Faith
04-16-2018 8:15 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Order is order. You've admitted there is order. You claim to disagree only with the mainstream interpretation. Sure looks like a lie from here.

Do you accept that there is order, or do you not?

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is order. There is no way that is the result of a fludde. We understand the properties of water and gravity completely. They don't sort in the manner we see, whether what's sorted is rock particles, fossils, or radioactive isotopes.

Denial is your only recourse. You have no evidence or explanation. Your ridiculous scenarios are neither.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1972 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 8:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4201
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1975 of 2099 (831414)
04-16-2018 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1923 by Faith
04-15-2018 11:59 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
The thing is, there isn't anything in that diagram to suggest when it occurred,

Sure there is. The rocks being deposited are of the same age as some of those in the Grand Canyon, this case the Supai Group. They are being deposited in response to the uplift of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains.

... and since I've seen so much evidence that serious disturbances did not happen until the entire geological column was laid down from Cambrian to Holocene, I have no doubt that what is shown in that diagram also happened after it was all in place.

Actually, you have seen no such thing. You have see the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon and nowhere else.

But feel free to continue your denial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1923 by Faith, posted 04-15-2018 11:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1980 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-17-2018 12:16 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4201
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1976 of 2099 (831415)
04-16-2018 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1924 by Faith
04-16-2018 12:00 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I don't suppose you could translate that into simple English?

It's not a simple topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1924 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 12:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2030 by Faith, posted 04-18-2018 2:35 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4201
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1977 of 2099 (831416)
04-16-2018 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1959 by Faith
04-16-2018 4:45 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
THE PHYSICAL ORDER IS RANDOM, THE INTERPRETATION OF ORDER IN TERMS OF TIME AND RELATEDNESS IS ILLUSORY. WHY ON EARTH IS THERE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THIS OBVIOUS POINT?

Because it's not obvious?

Tell me, have you always been this disagreeable, or did it take practice/

If there is no rational order to it at all why do you keep expecting creationists to pretend there is?

"If"???

Just trying to get you to SEE that there is a logical order.

The best we can do is suppose that there is some unknown principle of physical sorting that accounts for it that may never be known.

So, you are basing your point on ignorance, something you don't know?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1959 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1981 by Faith, posted 04-17-2018 1:06 AM edge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1978 of 2099 (831417)
04-16-2018 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1968 by Faith
04-16-2018 5:33 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:

It would only be a coincidence if there was a principle other than sheer imaginative classification of seeming similarity behind it

Since I am talking about the observed order, not the interpretation we have more evidence that it is you that confuses the two. Funny how you blame others for your own mistakes.

No, if there were no real principles behind the observed order it would have to be a massive coincidence. Weird how you manage to confirm the point you are supposedly disagreeing with.

Not to mention the fact that your whole idea of kinds is based on the same seeming similarities - certainly it has to be if you want to apply it to fossils. And it is exactly the same similarities that Linnaeus used to classify humans as apes.

quote:

...but complexity can't be the principle, since "early" fossils are sometimes much more complex than "later" ones.

Ive already explained that there is only a partial principle and that is agreement with Linnaean classification. (Not perfect, but we dont expect perfect).

quote:

All you have to go on is appearance based on morphology and you impose the idea of genetic relatedness on that

And we are often right, where it can be tested. After all genetic relatedness will cause similarities.

quote:

Specific claims of genetic relatedness such as between reptiles and mammals should be recognized to be absurdly impossible because of the sheer numbers of changes that would have to take place all in concert to get a mammal from a reptile, though even getting one plausible stage of change in one organ would be probabilistically impossible.

Its sort of funny how this comes up when your whole point is to reject a probability argument. And the argument you are rejecting is rather more solid - while exact numbers may be hard to work out the principles are clear, and you chose to invoke chance.

Whereas in this case you really have no idea at all of the relevant probabilities. You are just offering a completely uninformed opinion and trying to pass it off as fact. Unfortunately for you uninformed opinions cant beat evidence. The evidence says it happened so you need real evidence to answer it.

quote:

not to mention that there are thousands of transitionals needed between any two Species to even begin to make an argument, and you have what, half a dozen between different Species at best?

You believe in lots of evolution between species. Unless you want to abandon your idea of kinds and go back to fixity of species you have to accept that between-species evolution can occur without leaving fossils.

Then we have the question of why there are so many transitional representing evolution you dont believe in.

quote:

The "fossil order" is nothing but a testimony to the ability of human imagination to invent patterns that have no real meaning in reality.

The fossil order is the observed order you claim to accept, so at best you are being unclear again. Even if you claim to be talking about the evidence for evolution the methods of classification are the same as Linnaean taxonomy so you have to reject that, too. (Dont tell your fellow YECs they are too busy trying to claim Linnaeus as a great Creationist scientist.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1968 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 5:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1979 of 2099 (831418)
04-17-2018 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1970 by Faith
04-16-2018 6:23 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Instead of arguing that the transition is impossible perhaps you would like to go and tell the actual fossils that they cant exist ?

Seriously trying to produce a purely theoretical argument - based on guesses at that - is worthless unless you engage with the evidence.

Some points for you to consider.

Genes are not a blueprint and the developmental processes are not quite as simple as you think.

There is no preplanned outcome (which means that the probability of getting a specific result is irrelevant)

Your assumptions about microevolution - which is clearly microevolution even if you refuse to admit it because of your crazy superstitions - are just assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1970 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 6:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3616
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1980 of 2099 (831419)
04-17-2018 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1975 by edge
04-16-2018 10:03 PM


The Grand Canyon stratigraphy is NOT representitive of the Earth as a whole
edge writes:

Faith writes:

... and since I've seen so much evidence that serious disturbances did not happen until the entire geological column was laid down from Cambrian to Holocene, I have no doubt that what is shown in that diagram also happened after it was all in place.

Actually, you have seen no such thing. You have see the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon and nowhere else.

See subtitle.

(As Edge well knows) the Earth's continental geology is a vastly complex 3 dimensional mosaic of all kinds of rocks - sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic. The sequences of what happened first, then next, then next, etc. for a given area (small or large) can largely be determined by geometric relationships (eg the sediments on the bottom were deposited before the sediments above). This is entirely independent of radiometric dating considerations. This first, next, next, etc. adds up to a LOT of process and a LOT of time.

But just looking at the Grand Canyon column.

At the bottom (oldest) is the high grade metamorphic rocks. The conventional appraisal (not "God created with apparent age") is that these rocks were originally sediments that were deeply buried and subjected to quite high temperatures and pressures. High pressure means deep burial - The pressure is the pile of material on top.

Now I don't know the metamorphic grade of these rocks (nor am I a metamorphic petrologist) , but I must think that the burial depth was of the order of many miles. Then this many miles was eroded off (lots of time) to expose the metamorphics to being at the surface. This surface would become the non-conformity.

The metamorphics were then re-covered by the supergroup sediments, which were in turn folded/tilted and faulted, and then eroded. Again, much time needed. This surface that would become the angular unconformity (and it isn't a fault).

The supergroup was then covered by Paleozoic and later sediments, of a wide range of depositional environments. More time taken.

The big picture - The Earth's continental crust is a 3 dimensional mosaic of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks, all to some lesser or greater degree deformed or otherwise modified by folding, faulting, metamorphism, and other processes. To attribute this vastly complex 3 dimensional mosaic to being entirely the result of a single flood event is silly.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1975 by edge, posted 04-16-2018 10:03 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1982 by Faith, posted 04-17-2018 2:27 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
130131
132
133134
...
140Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018