Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2266 of 2887 (831863)
04-25-2018 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2259 by herebedragons
04-25-2018 8:38 AM


Re: Geological Column also known as Stratigraphic Column
I did not say that ripple impressions did not exist on the surface of the rocks, I said that ripples of the size in the picture you were talking about would be visible from a distancen and that THAT did not exist. Perhaps you didn't know what visible at a distance meant. It meant visible at the contact line between layers at a distance. You could see it, probably even in the walls of the Grand Canyon at quite some distance. The ripples that are seen in your pictures had to have been made on the surface of a just-deposited wet sediment like the tracks and the burrows and the raindrops, to be filled in and preserved by the next deposit of sediment. The picture of ripples in sand at the edge of a wetland would not be preserved in any case by any means.
Another such misreading is Capt Stormfield's claim that organic matter would just compress down and become merged so completely with the sediment that it would not be at all evident on the surface of a single-sediment rock. I think that's wacko, sandstone is sandstone, limestone limestone etc., there was obviously no organic matter there; there was no wetland there ever. Why are there coal seams formed from organic matter if it supposedly just disappears when buried, leaving nothing but sediment? But I'm tired of arguing these obvious things.
Oh and I might as well answer jar's silly remark about raindrop impressions. I already mentioned them. Like the tracks and the burrows they had to have been made when the rising water had just deposited a wet layer of sediment by a wave or a high tide and then retreated temporarily, to return in time to deposit a new load of sediment that filled the raindrop impressions. Sometime during the forty days and nights of rain I would suppose.
This kind of misreading is exhausting and it happens all the time and I'm not going to stay around for more of it. Thank you and goodbye.
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.
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.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 2259 by herebedragons, posted 04-25-2018 8:38 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2267 by jar, posted 04-25-2018 3:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2268 by herebedragons, posted 04-25-2018 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2267 of 2887 (831866)
04-25-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2266 by Faith
04-25-2018 2:37 PM


Re: Geological Column also known as Stratigraphic Column
Faith writes:
Oh and I might as well answer jar's silly remark about raindrop impressions. I already mentioned them. Like the tracks and the burrows they had to have been made when the rising water had just deposited a wet layer of sediment by a wave or a high tide and then retreated temporarily, to return in time to deposit a new load of sediment that filled the raindrop impressions. Sometime during the forty days and nights of rain I would suppose.
But how did it do dat Faithie?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2266 by Faith, posted 04-25-2018 2:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 2268 of 2887 (831868)
04-25-2018 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2266 by Faith
04-25-2018 2:37 PM


Re: Geological Column also known as Stratigraphic Column
I said that ripples of the size in the picture you were talking about would be visible from a distancen and that THAT did not exist.
I still don't get your objection... you can't see 2" high ripples from a mile away in a picture? In the Grand Canyon or anywhere in the world?
It's easy to "misread" something that makes no sense.
This kind of misreading is exhausting and it happens all the time and I'm not going to stay around for more of it.
Well, I'm sorry you have such a hard time understanding all of this. It may come from the fact that you are not willing to learn anything other than what you think applies to your argument. I have no doubt that you are intelligent enough to make sense of all this if you would just quit making things up and just learn about reality. I have tried to write things so you wouldn't misunderstand, but you have such a preconceived idea about geology that has nothing to do with reality that it is just inevitable.
Thank you and goodbye.
Ok, goodbye. Talk to you in a couple days/weeks and we can start all over again. Maybe we can go back to you misunderstanding genetics? or evolutionary processes?
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 2266 by Faith, posted 04-25-2018 2:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2269 of 2887 (831869)
04-25-2018 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2174 by Faith
04-23-2018 5:08 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
It does seem obvious to me that if there are creatures currently living in an environment, then it is possible that creatures in the past lived in similar environments.
You didn't quote me but I assume you are referring to my statement about how an extensive layer of sediment would prevent anything from living in the area, an argument we've been over a few times in the last couple of years. I think you and others are just refusing to actually think about what I'm saying. There WAS NO "environment" when the sediment was being laid down, it would have killed all the environment and everything living in it at the time, or actually, all the waves of sedimentary deposits already laid down would have.
This is self-evidently not true, as has been pointed out to you many times. Almost all sea and lake floors experience net sedimentation, and life is everywhere on lake and sea bottoms. Most land experiences both incoming and outgoing sediments, and life lives most everywhere on land, too.
And there is certainly nothing living "there" now, in the area covered by the slab of rock, because, well, it's not an "environment," it's a slab of rock.
Sedimentation rates on lake and sea floor away from continental margins are usually very slow, perhaps a few centimeters per thousand years, which is so slow that it could not possibly be a problem for any life living there. Closer to continental margins the sedimentation rates will be higher, some areas even experiencing rates as high as a yard per year. That's a tenth of an inch per day, but even that high a rate is not going to be a problem for most life, even slow snails.
Now there ARE creatures living on top of the whole stack or on whatever part of the stack is currently exposed, of course, because that's now the surface of the Earth.
Every level of all stratigraphic columns throughout the world were once the surface of the Earth.
But the "time periods" never were surface, that's a monumental delusion.
Unintelligible.
It also seems to me that someone with a poor understanding of trilobite diversity and with no knowledge of the genetics (because nobody really does) is in no position to say how long it should take the observed diversity to appear. And when they cite a figure that would seem to require intentional breeding programs I don’t see why I should take it seriously at all. I don’t see anything controversial in that either.
You are right that nobody has any knowledge of trilobite genetics because nobody has ever seen a living trilobite. And since current genetics labors under evolutionist assumptions...
The science of genetics operates using knowledge gained from studying the natural world, not "evolutionist assumptions."
Breeding programs are just an example to make the point that you can get dramatic new varieties of any living thing in a very short time, and since Darwin himself used breeding programs to argue for natural selection as the mechanism of evolution it ought to be fair to use them as I use them.
Yes, this is correct.
Some form of selection goes on all the time in nature, though not always or even all that frequently the form of natural selection that requires the death of the unfit,...
What you're trying to say is usually described as differential reproductive success.
...far more often the simple isolation of a portion of a population that leaves the rest of the population intact somewhere else.
When a population is somehow split into two separate populations, both populations still experience differential reproductive success, but the selection pressures each experiences will very likely differ.
This accomplishes the same thing for the isolated population that natural selection does,...
This is worth repeating. Both populations always experience natural selection, but the selection pressures will likely differ.
...meaning the isolation itself: that is THE mechanism that brings about change, variety, microevolution.
Mere isolation without changing the selection pressures can only bring about change through drift, and if you exclude mutation, as you usually do, then descendant populations will always be the same species as the original species.
And although I've many times proposed that this could be studied in a laboratory, it really ought to be easy enough to recognize that it wouldn't take more than whatever number of generations are needed to sexually combine all the genetic material in the total population, the time having to do with the number of individuals you start with and the degree of reproductive isolation.
I think "sexually combine all the genetic material in the total population" is probably meaningless.
You know that the lizards on Pod Mrcaru only needed thirty years to become an entirely different species/subspecies from the original parent stock of ten individuals,...
Which is it, species or subspecies? Likely the lizards of Pod Mrcaru represent a new breed or race or subspecies, but they certainly are not a new species because they are genetically identical to the lizards of the original population on Pod Kopiste.
...and that wasn't a breeding program, just the isolation of a few individuals which must happen in nature very frequently. This ought to be obvious.
The changes to the lizards of Pod Mrcaru are thought due to a change in diet whereby they increased the proportion of vegetation over insects by a great deal. If drift were responsible for the changes then that would mean that
the selection pressures on the lizards of Pod Mrcaru were identical to those on the original population on Pod Kopiste, and drift is very unlikely to have caused any measurable changes in a mere 30 years.
The problem of course is that evolutionists insist that a mutation had to be the cause,...
This is incorrect. Mutation is not thought to have played any role in the changes to the lizards on Pod Mrcaru. The changes are thought to have drawn upon existing variation within the genome. This conclusion is unavoidable since, as stated earlier, the lizards on both islands remain genetically identical.
...and I argue instead that no mutation is needed,...
There's no need to argue this point because that's what everyone already believed.
...all that you need is generations of sexual recombination of the existing genetic material.
Again, in the absence of different selection pressures from those experienced by the original population, all you have is drift, which is very unlikely to produce measurable change in short time periods.
In any case it takes hardly any time at all.
I think everyone agrees that selection pressures can bring about visible change in a small number of generations. Breeders do it all the time.
I refuse to read what Percy has written on the subject of the Jutland cattle I raised a while back...
Of course you do. Ignorance is hard work, after all. Don't want any knowledge to slip through.
but I'll make my point again:...
Of course you'll make your point again. That's what you do, ignore rebuttals and repeat your original points, forcing people to repeat their rebuttals again.
...the reproductive isolation of a few individuals of the parent herd was all it took to get a whole new species/subspecies in whatever time it took to mix the genetic material in the isolated population.
Jutland cattle are the same species as all other cattle. They're just a particular breed (subspecies) of cattle. They're genetically cattle just like all other cattle like Jerseys and Herefords and so on.
This is the REAL evolution...
Breeding *is* evolution, but it's evolution within a species, that is, microevolution.
...and it takes very little time, anywhere from a hundred to a few hundred years to get a whole new population.
Breeding doesn't have to take a hundred or a few hundred years - it does take longer for species where individuals take longer to reach sexual maturity and if the breeding goals are ambitious. But new breeds can be created in very short times. Many breeds of pigeon were created during the 19th century, and new breeds of dog and cat are created all the time. I have a Bengal house cat, a breed created during the 1970s.
The popular scientific press has presented the case of the Pod Mrcaru lizards in a somewhat misleading fashion. Articles are rarely clear that the evolution that took place was only microevolution within a species, and they for some reason like to characterize the degree of change as something evolutionary science didn't think possible, which is definitely not true. The basis of evolutionary science is that selection pressures drive adaptation that results in change. The only thing unexpected was that the selection pressures on Pod Mrcaru would be so different from Pod Kopiste. It's analogous to beak size/shape variation in the same species of Darwin's finches across the various Galapagos Islands, and across climatic conditions (rainfall, temperature) that vary with time.
Reproductive isolation is the mechanism. It's a form of selection, just not classical Natural Selection.
Assuming the context is the wild, when a population becomes somehow divided into two reproductively isolated subpopulations, the members of each subpopulation can't really be said to have been selected since it was something that happened randomly (though naturally), for example, a river changing its course and dividing a population in two. I suppose the distinction between what is selection and what is not can be a bit tricky. Would anyone say the extinction of the dinosaurs was due to selective pressures, given that it was caused by an asteroid strike? Both population splits and extinction by asteroid seem more like serendipity than selection.
And since there would have been quite a bit more genetic variety in any population before the Flood than afterward, the degree of change from one subspecies of trilobite to another is obviously microevolution to the degree I'm talking about, within the Kind.
You have a talent for cramming a great many errors into very few words. There is no evidence for the Flood, let alone any evidence of significant change in genetic variation before and after around 4500 years when this supposed Flood was supposed to have happened. You haven't defined kind, and so microevolution within a kind also has no definition. Many trilobite fossils are so vastly different that they are obviously different species, e.g.:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2174 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 5:08 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2270 by jar, posted 04-25-2018 5:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2270 of 2887 (831870)
04-25-2018 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2269 by Percy
04-25-2018 4:51 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Percy writes:
There is no evidence for the Flood, let alone any evidence of significant change in genetic variation before and after around 4500 years when this supposed Flood was supposed to have happened.
The truth is that there is direct evidence that the Biblical Flood did not happen and that there has been very little genetic change in over 10,000 years.
Change leaves evidence. If someone claims to have hit the target but there is no hole in the target, the person did not hit the target.
We know what the evidence for a flood looks like. In fact we can identify quite a few floods that happened in the past. But there is NO evidence of any world-wide flood happening at anytime when humans existed.
We also have direct genetic evidence going back at least 700,000 years which is certainly pre-Biblical Flood regardless of which Biblical Flood story is used as the reference.
We also have other genetic samples; Oetzi is a great example and he would have been a contemporary of Adam which would place him pre-Biblical Flood as well and with Oetzi we gained gentic evidence of humans as well as animals and plants from the same period and environment.
So what we have is not just a lack of evidence but actual evidence showing little or no genetic changes as well as the fact that the evidence that MUST be there if the Biblical Flood really hit the target is simply not there.
Young Earth is a stupid idea only supported by Cultists.
The Biblical Flood is a stupid idea only supported by Cultists.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2269 by Percy, posted 04-25-2018 4:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2271 by Coyote, posted 04-25-2018 5:36 PM jar has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 2271 of 2887 (831871)
04-25-2018 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2270 by jar
04-25-2018 5:19 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
We also have other genetic samples; Oetzi is a great example and he would have been a contemporary of Adam which would place him pre-Biblical Flood as well and with Oetzi we gained gentic evidence of humans as well as animals and plants from the same period and environment.
I have evidence from my own archaeological investigations linking mdDNA at 5300 years ago to modern descendants in the same area. That alone disproves a global flood in the past 5300 years. My colleagues have a lot of samples that are older that do the same thing. And, I have two samples being analyzed that date to 7600 years ago--we'll see what they produce.
In other words, there is data disproving the flood all over the place, and even my research in one limited area of the US can find it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2270 by jar, posted 04-25-2018 5:19 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2272 of 2887 (831875)
04-25-2018 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2185 by Faith
04-23-2018 11:27 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
There WAS NO "environment" when the sediment was being laid down, it would have killed all the environment and everything living in it at the time, or actually, all the waves of sedimentary deposits already laid down would have.
That is your assumption. We don’t agree. That is not a lack of thought on our part, that’s you just rejecting our view on the matter out of hand.
It's not an assumption, it's the reasonable conclusion from the facts: nothing could live on the sedimentary layers continuous over great areas that make up the geological column. Tapeats over most of North America, etc.
The Tapeats was a coastal region. As each centimeter (or millimeter or whatever increment you like) of sand was deposited, that became the new surface on which life lived, gradually accumulating to a depth of as much as a few hundred feet.
the Tapeats contains the fossils of life that lived on the accumulating sediments. What I can find about Tapeats fossils on the web says that they included Correphioides, Diplocraterion and Skolithos, as well as some trilobite tracks. The Tapeats was deposited before life invaded the land, so those parts of the Tapeats that are crossbedded coastal sand dunes were uninhabited and contain no fossils.
But the "time periods" never were surface, that's a monumental delusion. I'm sure you won't get it because you don't want to get it, but maybe someone else will.
Your arrogant bluster is just a foolish bullying tactic. Too bad that’s all you’ve got.
Each level of strata was at one point the Earth's surface (as land or as sea or lake floor), and this is true both in reality and in your Flood scenario.
It is a conclusion from the observed facts that the "time periods" were never surface: the prevalent lack of erosion and the knife-edge contacts.
Erosion is very prevalent. There are two ways (that I know of, others may know of additional ways) that erosion at a strata boundary can be recognized. One is by a sharp contact (which is what I think you really mean by "knife-edge contact"). The other is by radiometric dating, which can indicate a gap in time between strata.
Ironically, your "knife-edge contacts" are part of the evidence *for* the unconformities you claim don't exist.
You are right that nobody has any knowledge of trilobite genetics because nobody has ever seen a living trilobite. And since current genetics labors under evolutionist assumptions as does every other science related to biology, you get the wrong answer in all of them.
Which is just more bluster.
Actually it's just the reasonable conclusion from the facts.
Here are two different trilobite species. Please explain how they could possibly be the same species:
Breeding programs are just an example to make the point that you can get dramatic new varieties of any living thing in a very short time
Breeding programs in fact speed up the process as should be fairly obvious.
As the rule, but as I go on to point out there's no reason it wouldn't happen just as rapidly in nature.
Of course there are reasons evolutionary change wouldn't normally happen as rapidly in nature as in a breeding program. The initiation of a breeding program immediately changes the selection pressures because the breeder is selecting who mates. In nature selection pressures can change only as fast as the environment changes, which is usually very slowly. The Pod Mrcaru lizards experienced a sudden change in selection pressures when they experienced a sudden change in environment when they were transported from Pod Kopiste to Pod Mrcaru.
All it would take is a few members of a population becoming geographically and therefore reproductively isolated from the parent population, breeding among themselves for whatever number of generations it takes until their combined genomes produce a brand new species/subspecies. Could even take only thirty years.
You can't say "species/subspecies" because there's a big difference between the two. Populations of different subspecies can interbreed while populations of different species cannot.
Since we have no idea whether you mean species or subspecies (you can't mean both) your meaning is unclear.
Selective breeding is far more controlled than nature. Funny how you miss the obvious. You will note that in Darwin’s examples selective breeding produced far more varied phenotypes than are known in the wild populations.
Yes of course, but the example was to demonstrate that it doesn't take millions of years to get new species.
Since you don't believe speciation is possible, why do you say this?
But anyway, I think we all agree that "it doesn't take millions of years to get new species," and I don't recall anyone ever saying that speciation requires millions of years.
Drift alone should keep species from remaining unchanged for millions of years. It isn't impossible that speciation could take millions of years if environmental conditions remained very stable and if the impact of drift were negligible, but typically speciation occurs in much less than millions of years. The pace of evolutionary change is also proportional to generation times. Species with very short generation times (bacteria) can evolve very quickly, while species with long generation times (people) evolve much more slowly.
It takes extreme breeding practices to produce such dramatic phenotypes, such as Founder Effect,...
The Founder Effect is a concept from population genetics, not breeding.
...and that does happen in nature too -- cheetah, elephant seal -- but is also known to be detrimental to the health of the animal.
The examples of cheetahs and elephant seals indicate that you're actually thinking about reduced genetic diversity, not dramatic phenotypes. Phenotype, dramatic or not, is not an indicator of genetic diversity. Breeding can reduce genetic diversity and cause health problems, but breeding dramatic phenotypes is not synonymous with reducing genetic diversity.
Which breeders also discovered from their extreme selective breeding. Why would you argue about such well-known things anyway?
PaulK didn't say anything about genetic diversity. He said that selective breeding can produce more varied phenotypes, and you agree.
However there's no reason such strong selection [as breeding] couldn't occur in nature too, depends on the environmental pressure.
Yes. Well said.
I choose the controlled conditions because the point is easier to make, and controlled conditions may occur in nature too, often meaning geographic isolation.
There's no such thing as controlled conditions in nature, and saying so will only create confusion. You say "geographic isolation" is an example of controlled conditions in nature, but it isn't, not even close.
In nature there will also frequently be continued gene flow creating hybrid zones, and resumed gene flow, which make it harder to get the point across, although in fact those conditions also produce new species.
Again, since you don't believe speciation is possible, why do you say this?
You know that the lizards on Pod Mrcaru only needed thirty years to become an entirely different species/subspecies from the original parent stock of ten individuals, and that wasn't a breeding program, just the isolation of a few individuals which must happen in natural very frequently
Again, you can't say "species/subspecies". When you do this your meaning becomes unclear since there's no way to know whether you're referring to interbreeding populations or not.
Clearing this up once again about the Pod Mrcaru lizards, they are a subspecies of the same lizard species on Pod Kopiste, not a new species. They remain genetically identical to their Pod Kopiste cousins.
What's rare about it is only that it was a very rare opportunity to see that evolution can occur very rapidly, which normally is not observable.
Rapid change is observed by breeders all the time. What is rare is to see such rapid change in nature, which resulted from the rapid change in environmental conditions when humans transported the lizards from Pod Kopiste to Pod Mrcaru.
Different species/subspecies are seen in nature with no evidence of how they developed...
On the contrary, all the evidence points to a continuous process of descent with modification followed by natural selection being responsible for the diversity of species observed today.
...and that has allowed for the huge estimates of time involved based on ToE assumptions.
Not assumptions but knowledge gathered by study of the natural world. The pace of genetic change is consistent with the degree of genetic difference we observe between related species, which is in turn consistent with the fossil record.
When there has been opportunity to see the evolution in action such as in the Pod Mrcaru lizards and the Jutland cattle, the time involved is very rapid, which ought to call the ToE time frames into question -- since they are all nothing but theory, and observation proves the theory wrong.
The Pod Mrcaru lizards and Jutland cattle are the result of selection pressures on existing variation. They have not experienced any genetic change, usually necessary for speciation. Selection of existing variation will only cause change within the species, i.e., new breeds and races.
It still might be an environmental response, in part or whole.
Possibly, but it nevertheless defies the usual ToE time factor.
Breeding (Jutland cattle, pigeons, cats, dogs) only creates new breeds, not new species. Suddenly different selection pressures on the Pod Mrcaru llizards created a new breed, not a new species. Creating new breeds has always been known to not take very long. This is not new.
It is speciation that requires longer time periods because it (usually but not always) requires the accumulation of mutations in order to create the genetic incompatibility that defines a new species.
And yet you want us to believe that similar changes happened in hundreds or thousands of trilobite groups adding up to much more extensive change. And not as a possibility, but as a near certainty. That is obviously wrong. Which I suppose explains why you resort to bluster.
I am making a case for rapid evolution in contrast with the ToE's huge time spans.
You're successfully making the case for something that is already known, namely that microevolution creating new breeds doesn't take that long.
Wherever evolution is actually observed it is rapid and nowhere near the assumed time frames of the ToE.
You're describing microevolution creating new breeds. That is not rapid evolution in the sense of new species, and the timeframes you've mentioned are far too short for new mutations to have any significant influence.
Extrapolating to the degree of variation seen in trilobite examples I think it very reasonable to suppose all those varieties only needed oh maybe hundreds of years to emerge, nowhere near the millions upon millions implied by their positions in the many layers in the geological column.
If all the 17,000 different trilobite types in the fossil record were different breeds then you might have a case, but they're obviously not different breeds. They're too wildly different from one another to be the same breed. They have to be different species, and the time it takes to produce new species is much longer than for new breeds.
You have evidence of mutations here and there being an ingredient in the formation of a new species, you do not have evidence that such an expressed nondeleterious mutation is anything more than a very occasional occurrence. I'm making the case for genetic potentials built in at the creation and observation supports this case.
The scientific explanation for the genetic differences between species is mutation. Leaving aside God and Bible in this science thread and sticking to scientific arguments underpinned by evidence, how do you think those genetic differences happened?
Actually it was merely an aside in recognition that there is a great deal of variety in the fossil trilobites, more than I would expect to occur in a given population today (although the dog Kind gives them some competition), which my paradigm does explain
Yes, there is a great deal of variety in fossil trilobites. How do you explain the trilobite images from earlier in this message as the same species?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2185 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 11:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 2273 of 2887 (831876)
04-25-2018 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2186 by Faith
04-23-2018 11:36 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
The dating issue can't disprove all the evidence I've mustered. All the dating methods are questionable, not established with anything like the certainty you bestow on them.
You haven't mustered any evidence. You've made many erroneous statements that have been immediately rebutted. You ignore the rebuttals, later repeat your original errors, then pat yourself on the back for doing such a great job.
Trump's just like you. He lies or makes blatant errors of fact and then just never backs down no matter how untruthful or stupid it makes him look. "My inaugural crowd was the biggest in history. Illegal immigrants cast millions of votes for Hillary Clinton costing me the popular vote. Mexico will pay for the wall. Rex Tillerson will not be fired. There were fine people on both sides. Puerto Rico is doing great. I'm making no money on the tax cuts. Obama wiretapped me. I don't even know Putin. Melania loves me. Etc..." (I made up the last one )
Why not just play things straight? Make points based on scientific evidence, respond to rebuttals, act like a grownup.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2186 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 11:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 2274 of 2887 (831879)
04-26-2018 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2187 by Faith
04-23-2018 11:41 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
First appreciate the evidence and arguments I've given that are really extremely telling,...
With the exception of the occasional correct statement, your evidence and arguments have been error-filled, ignorant, wrong, misguided, and immediately rebutted, not once but multiple times over the years. You respond with more error-filled evidence and argument which is also immediately rebutted. You repeat this for a while, then you disappear for a time only to return and begin the cycle all over again from scratch.
it's changing the subject to skip to the tracks etc. I've answered all those other objections anyway.
I don't think there has ever been a time when your explanation about tracks and burrows and so forth haven't been immediately rebutted. Answers that have been shown wrong are not answers:
  • T: "How much is 2+2, Johnny?"
  • S: "I answered that question yesterday."
  • T: "But you gave the wrong answer of 5."
  • S: "5 is the correct answer."
  • T: "No, Johnny, 5 is incorrect."
  • S: "No it's not incorrect, 5 is the right answer."
  • T: "Why do you think 5 is correct?"
  • S: "Because I have my own math paradigm. Your math paradigm is wrong."
  • T: "Can you explain your paradigm"
  • S: "Yes, my paradigm says your paradigm is wrong."
  • T: "That's not an explanation, that's just a declaration. Let's use our counting line again to check the answer."
  • S: "Your math paradigm has left you unable to think outside the box of assumptions like your counting line."
  • T: "There's no evidence that the counting line is wrong and a great deal of evidence that it is correct.
  • S: "Well, your wrong, you're treating me unfairly, you're not giving my ideas fair consideration, I've answered all your questions, if you don't understand that's your problem. The answer is 5. I'm leaving."
And so it goes with you, for years and years.
Tracks and burrows in flat lithified sediment are far from any kind of evidence of life on such a surface, which would be impossible. Nothing could live there.
Great start. Now explain why it would be impossible for anything to live on an ancient landscape very similar to the landscapes we see around the world today.
They have to have occurred during phases of the Flood, there is no other reasonable explanation.
Until you have evidence of your Flood, it is not a reasonable explanation.
There are no stream beds there, that is a big illusion,...
Here's an image of your big illusion showing a Temple Butte river bed:
...maybe some water runoff when the tide was out,...
Where is your geological evidence that successive tides deposited the sediments of the stratigraphic columns?
...but everything else runs or floats and there is no normal life reason for them to be on a flat flat rock-to-be.
I thought they had to run out onto the flats between high tides in order to leave tracks and dig burrows?
And it is only in the last couple of decades I've been confined as I am, I used to love to garden. Never much for hiking though.
I'm sorry your body is confined, but that's no excuse because your mind isn't. You can still choose to freely consider the evidence instead of regurgitating and repeating stock answers unhindered by supporting evidence, you can still respond to rebuttals instead of tactically avoiding what you can't answer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2187 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 11:41 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2275 by dwise1, posted 04-26-2018 10:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2275 of 2887 (831880)
04-26-2018 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2274 by Percy
04-26-2018 9:56 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
  • T: "How much is 2+2, Johnny?"
  • S: "I answered that question yesterday."
  • T: "But you gave the wrong answer of 5."
  • S: "5 is the correct answer."
  • T: "No, Johnny, 5 is incorrect."
Interesting choice of example.
In the first minute of Questioning Darwin, 2014, HBO, Pastor Peter LaRuffa states:
quote:
If somewhere within the Bible I were to find a passage that said that 2+2=5, I wouldn't question what I read in the Bible, I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out to understand it.
You can always tell a dogmatist, you just can't tell her anything.
Another quote that seems to fit Faith:
quote:
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
As I seem to recall, Faith did have a blog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2274 by Percy, posted 04-26-2018 9:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 2276 of 2887 (831882)
04-26-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2188 by Faith
04-23-2018 11:46 PM


Faith writes:
What do you imagine is under the ocean floor?
Magma mostly. Though it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Magma doesn't exist everywhere beneath the Earth's surface. It's exists in pockets here and there around subduction zones, and forms and rises to the sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges. Definitely only a very small proportion of the ocean floor is underlain by magma. Maybe you're thinking of the molten and liquid part of the Earth's core, the outer core, about 1800 miles deep and consisting of nickel and iron, not magma.
So what is beneath most sea floor? We know the answer from the many times geologists have drilled deeply into the sea floor and extracted lengthy cores of sedimentary layers. More well known are the many offshore oil drilling rigs that drill miles into the sea bed and do not encounter magma. The deepest ever drilled is around 35,000 feet, more than 6 miles. No magma.
Sediments lie on the sea floor. Directly beneath the topmost sediments are more sediments. Directly beneath those sediments are more sediments. It's sediments all the way down until you hit igneous rock (quite likely produced at a mid-oceanic ridge), eventually mantle rock, and eventually the outer core.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2188 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 11:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2277 of 2887 (831885)
04-26-2018 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2188 by Faith
04-23-2018 11:46 PM


Magma mostly. Though it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
"Given your claims that there is no "geological column" under the ocean, I'd suggest that the question of what is under there is highly relevant. And, wow, what a hilarious answer you gave ...

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2188 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 11:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 2278 of 2887 (831886)
04-26-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2193 by Faith
04-24-2018 3:14 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
Tracks and burrows in flat lithified sediment are far from any kind of evidence of life on such a surface, which would be impossible. Nothing could live there.
Why not? You're just giving us your conclusions. How did you arrive at those conclusions?
A flat wet sedimentary surface, which is of course the surface on which all the tracks and burrows and raindrops and so on were originally made, is not a normal surface things live on. These things are impressed into rock, indicating that another deposit of sediment came along right after the impressions were made, filled them and preserved them, no doubt killing the creatures that made the impressions at the same time. This is a scenario one would expect from waves forming layers.
This is just a description of what you think happened, not an explanation of how you arrived at your conclusions. We want to know the evidence and the thinking processes around that evidence that drove your conclusions. Here are a few questions whose answers would help us understand your views:
  • How did the ocean keep all the different types of sediments separate? Sand is heavier/denser than silt, mud or clay particles, so for example, how did the ocean keep the sand that created the Tapeats (near the base of the Grand Canyon) from the sand that created the Coconino (near the top of the Grand Canyon)? What evidence do you have of processes that can do such things?
  • How did the oceans sort sediments according to radiometric age? Sedimentary layers cannot be radiometrically dated directly but are indirectly dated by embedded volcanic deposits of mud, ash or basalt, so the real question is how the oceans sorted volcanic deposits with the sediments in such a way that they were ordered by increasing age.
  • Radiometric age also changes laterally along strata. For instance, the volcanic deposits in the Tapeats get older from east to west. What evidence do you have of a process that could cause this?
  • What evidence do you have of a process that could keep fossils sorted by degree of difference from modern forms so that no rabbit was ever buried with a trilobite, no pterodactyl with a bat?
  • Given that the oceans were full of recently dead life, how was it submerged into the "correct" collection of sediments instead of floating on the surface?
  • Does any evidence tell you what order the sediments were kept in while in the ocean? It would seem to make the most sense that they would be in inverse order, with, for example, the Supergroup sediments being at the top so they could be deposited first, and the Claron nearer the bottom so it could be deposited much later.
  • You say that waves formed the layers, but in the past you've said it was tides. Which is it, and what evidence tells you which it was?
  • As a wave or tide sweeping across a landscape reached its limit, stopping and then retreating, this would have left an edge of sedimentary deposits. Each wave or tide would have left an edge where it stopped. What is the evidence of these edges in strata?
  • Did a wave or tide sweeping across a landscape leave more sediments near the coast and less where it stopped? Or did it leave the same amount of sediments throughout its range of travel? Whichever way it was, what is the evidence that tells you how the sediments were distributed across the landscape.
  • What evidence tells you that some fossils are of life that ran out onto the mudflats after the wave or tide receded, while other fossils are of already deceased life carried in on the wave or tide?
  • Given their relatively slow speed, what evidence do you have of how worms ran out onto the mudflats to dig wormholes?
  • Does the evidence tell you that the dinosaurs ran out onto the mudflats to build nests and lay eggs, or does it say the nests with eggs were delivered by the waves or tides? Whichever way it is, what is the evidence?
  • What evidence do you have of the processes that allowed the oceans to keep each dinosaur species together with nests of that species
  • What evidence do you have of how termite nests came to be in the sedimentary strata. Did termites run out onto the mudflats to build nests, or were the nests carried there by waves or tides?
could be wrong, but I assume that you have some kind of an idea of the process by which a layer forms and that you are basing your conclusions on that unspoken idea. So then just what exactly is it?
There are various processes that form layers. One is precipitation out of standing water sorting according to size.
Precipitation is when a compound precipitates out of solution and cannot be according to size, so what you must really mean is sediments falling out of suspension by size/density. Since we observe no sorting by size/density in the strata, this could not have been a factor.
Another is being laid down by ocean waves, the way sandy beaches are laid down.
Wave action is too energetic to deposit anything but heavy coarse particles like sand. Smaller, lighter particles like mud, silt and clay will only fall out suspension in quieter waters further from shore.
This is probably how the layers are formed according to Walther's Law since it is rising water that causes those layers, though they could be precipitated I suppose.
You've crammed many errors into a small space. Precipitation can be a partial factor in calcareous sediments, but not in any of the other major strata rock types like sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, slate and shale. Walther's Law is about a land/water boundary moving very slowly across a landscape. The most common examples of Walther's Law are transgressing and regressing seas. To describe a common way the process works, sediments from land are delivered to coastlines where wave action separates the fine particles from the heavy. The heavy particles, sand mostly, is deposited at the coastline. The finer particles are suspended in the ocean waters until they're carried to quieter waters away from shore where they gradually fall out of suspension.
Coastlines move slowly. The long time periods allow great depths of sand to be deposited at the coasts and great depths of siltstone, mudstone, slate and shale at some distance from shore. Great depths of calcareous sediments/precipitates are deposited in warm shallow seas far from shore.
Another is the simultaneous deposition of two layers at once, one above the other, in fast running water, which is shown in the flume experiments in the Berthault film I posted way back there in Message 1186, which is apparently the way the wall of layers was formed by the flooding creek shown in the same film,...
I rebutted your Berthault claims in Message 1255. You didn't reply. You could reply now, but until then we'll have to consider rebutted the possibility that the processes described by Berthault played any role.
...and I think also the way the Mt. St. Helens layers were formed, though I'm not entirely sure about that.
The Mount St. Helens deposits are a single layer of unlithified mud and ash, not sedimentary deposits.
Lots of ways though.
Please describe for us these many other ways sediments could be deposited by a Flood.
f you refuse to explain that process in as much step-by-step detail as possible, then we can never know what you are basing your conclusions on and you could never convince us of your "paradigm". Please note that your failure to convince us is not our fault, but rather it's all your fault for withholding required information. Therefore, only you can break the stalemate by providing that required information.
I've discussed it before though, I'm not withholding anything.
Technically this must be true, since one cannot withhold knowledge one does not have.
From what I've tried to figure out, it appears that you envision each layer being deposited in one single event.
I often do picture it that way, a layer carried in on a wave for instance, but I also know that a single "time period" might be formed at the same time, such as the transgressive deposits known as the Sauk Sea or Tippecanoe transgression and so on. The creationist film I brought up a while back ("Is Genesis History?") shows the geographic extent across North America of those various transgressions as blocks of sedimentary layers.
What evidence tells you that the Sauk and Tippecanoe sequences were formed by a single wave or tide?
I think I've also seen evidence that you think that the lithification of that layer occurs while it is still on the surface. Are those what you think happened? If not, then please provide a detailed description of what you actually think happened.
I think it was the weight of the layers accumulating to a great depth that caused the lithification of those lower in the stack, beginning first with their intense compaction of course.
Since you believe rock forms by drying, why do you say lithification requires great weight? Recall that you believe the layers visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon were still soft and wet when the Flood created the canyon, and only hardened later.
In some places there is evidence that the uppermost layers, such as over the Grand Canyon/Kaibab plateau to a depth of a mile or two, washed away not too long after being deposited, leaving the presumably more consolidated lower layers intact.
Then why are the layers high above the Kaibab like the Claron over at Brian Head just as lithified as the Kaibab, and the Kaiparowits just below the Claron is very hard sandstone.
I postulate a great tectonic upheaval to cause that washing away.
What evidence can you present that there was tectonic upheaval coincident with a global flood.
I spelled this out in some detail in Message 1982 though I'd have to go back years to find a really thorough presentation of the idea.
You were replying to Minnemooseus, who didn't reply. I assumed he was going to reply, which is why I didn't reply myself. I'll reply to it when I find a free moment.
Showing HOW the Flood happened isn't necessary to proving THAT it happened however, and obviously since nobody was there it can't be anything but speculation.
This isn't true. Things that happen leave evidence behind. If there were really a global flood 4500 years ago that was responsible for all the world's geology then the evidence would be copious and everywhere, but it isn't.
The evidence I focus on is the presentation of the strata of the geological column in straight flat layers with tight contacts between them, showing that their surfaces were not exposed for any length of time,...
I think you mean sharp contacts, not tight contacts. Sharp contacts are evidence of an interval of erosion between a lower stratum and the deposition of the next. When deposition is continuous across strata boundaries then the transition from one strata to the next is not sharp but gradual, such as the transitions from Tapeats Sandstone to Bright Angel Shale to Muav Limestone, which is a classic transgressive sea sequence.
...maybe hours at the most,...
What is your evidence that any of these geological strata took only hours to form?
...and the fact that the entire Phanerozoic stack up to three miles or more in depth shows no tectonic or volcanic disturbance until all the layers are in place -- in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area in particular, but also extrapolated to other locations which are more deformed and harder to interpret.
Long before the deposition of the strata forming the walls of the Grand Canyon there was a great deal of tectonic activity that tilted the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. This was followed by about a billion year interval that included a great deal of erosion of Supergroup layers before deposition resumed with the Tapeats.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2193 by Faith, posted 04-24-2018 3:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2279 of 2887 (831892)
04-26-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2198 by Faith
04-24-2018 12:42 PM


Re: Geological Column also known as Stratigraphic Column
Faith writes:
What a bunch of fatuous nonsense.
Well, it can't be said that you don't love wallowing in ignorance. Every time you encounter true knowledge you run the other way. It's a wonder that flim-flam men haven't reduced you to complete poverty.
The Geological Column is represented in many actual geographical areas representing actual rock formations representing the Geological Timescale in that area.
If I'm right in thinking that you're only saying that stratigraphic columns exist that fit into the framework of the geologic column, then you are correct.
Just because the entire stack doesn't exist in any one place doesn't make the formation nonexistent.
If by "formation" you mean a particular stratigraphic column then this would be correct. The geologic column is not fully represented at any one location anywhere in the world, but all stratigraphic columns throughout the world fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column.
But the way you actually worded this makes it seem like "formation" refers to geologic column, and if so then that is dead wrong. The geologic column is conceptual. It does not refer to any particular formation.
The rocks representing time periods exist all over the world.
Undeniably true. Nobody said anything different.
The Geological Column is quite famously represented for the Grand Canyon for instance.
It's not clear what you're trying to say here. If it's only that the strata of the Grand Canyon fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column, then that would be correct.
I guess you're all trying to make the actual slabs of rocks that cover massive areas of ground go poof and disappear because they are such good evidence for the Flood.
No one said anything like this.
An analogy to the geologic column might be The Periodic Table of the Elements. It's a conceptual framework into which the elements of the universe are placed. It isn't an actual element itself. The geologic column is a similar thing. It's a conceptual framework into which the stratigraphic columns around the world can be placed. It isn't an actual stratigraphic column itself.
Here's the definition of geologic column you found, perhaps at Merriam Webster, but it appears at many websites:
quote:
a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time 2
: the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column
Dictionary definitions of scientific terms can sometimes be inadequate or garbled, and I can understand how this one has misled you. A slight rewriting makes it much easier to understand the concept they were trying to communicate:
quote:
a columnar diagram indicating the subdivisions of geologic time into which rock formations of a locality or region can be arranged
EvC's glossary defines it this way:
quote:
A diagram representing divisions of geologic time and the rock units formed during each major period.
Wikipedia defines it this way, coming straight out and calling it the geologic time scale:
quote:
The geologic time scale (GTS) is a system of chronological dating that relates geological strata (stratigraphy) to time.
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines it this way:
quote:
Geologic column and its associated time scale
The end product of correlation [of geologic and fossil data] is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world’s individual rock sequences into a single sequence.
Hope this helps.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2198 by Faith, posted 04-24-2018 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2280 of 2887 (831893)
04-26-2018 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2199 by Faith
04-24-2018 12:53 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
The tracks represent creatures fleeing from the Flood across the latest sediment deposit by the latest wave of the rising water, other things burrowed trying to escape, other things were floated there. You've just joined the conversation very recently but all this has been said many times before.
I think in trying to be brief that you've been inaccurate or at least misleading in describing your views. You have the flood depositing sediments on land through a process of successive waves or tides. After one wave or tide has flowed across the landscape, deposited its sediments, and then receded, presumably there is no life left on the newly deposited mudflat.
This means that before creatures could be present on the mudflat to flee the next wave or tide that they must first have scampered onto the mudflat. Therefore the tracks could represent creatures coming or going.
About things floating there, I presume you mean things like dinosaur nests and termite nests. This raises a question: What is your evidence for processes that allow the ocean to hold and keep separate a large variety of sediments sorted by a particular order with no regard for size and density, and also keeping all the life of the appropriate type with the right sediments, and also keeping the floating things with the right sediments even though they'll have to remain submerged until it's their sediment's turn to be washed onto land by a wave or tide, and also keeping volcanic deposits in radiometric order and with the right sediments?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2199 by Faith, posted 04-24-2018 12:53 PM Faith 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