|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
OK. the answer is you'll never accept the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
And yet you don't have the courage to stand up for what you think you know. By all means, let's discuss what the Bible says. I'm the only one here with the correct understanding of the Bible....An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How do you test, replicate or in any way validate the idea that time periods as indicated in the rocks actually existed as landscapes with living things populating them? All you have is the theory or imaginative construct and no way whatever to prove it. Besides which as I've pointed out the rock itself makes it impossible, which you all flat out deny. How can you prove that your fields or that grooved Oceanside bench could ever become a rock in the geo column?
How do you test, replicate, or validate the whole evolutionary theory that any given animal descended from any other? That mammals descended from reptiles for instance? You cannot prove that no matter how much circumstantial stuff you amass, and there will always be the possibility of some other way of interpreting it, and in any case the changes that would have to be made are astronomically impossible.. You hold to these theories because there is no way to actively prove or disprove them despite their impossibility. . Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
By observing the traces they leave behind and investigating how the world works today and the evidence that physical laws were the same in the past.
Denying reality does not change it to your liking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Boy was that a gobbledygook of an answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yup, as usual no substantive response, just a gratuitous insult.
You think it's cute as all get-out to use my word? Guess you didn't read the post in which I used "gobbledygook" and comprehend that I explained why your post was gobbledygook. Alas, you can't explain. Just another day on your far-away planet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
How do you test, replicate or in any way validate the idea that time periods as indicated in the rocks actually existed as landscapes with living things populating them? In the face of the response I gave previously, your answer is idiotic. The living things left behind traces which we can observe. Those traces have been discussed here numerous times. I don't expect that you would agree with the conclusions that have been reached. But I would expect that you were at least familiar with the evidence by now. In addition, we there are numerous threads where absolute and relative dating techniques are discussed as well as the agreement of the dates obtained by the various techniques. I have to conclude that you are not debating honestly. The only alternative is that you are way over your head here. In either case, you are not worth the trouble. It is as if you are not even trying anymore. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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 No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: Well, thanks for trying but I still can't see how you'd get a flat horizontal rock like those in the geo/strat column from that landscape. Edge didn't reply, so I'll provide an answer. This is the image Edge provided:
As explained earlier, this is Welcombe Mouth Beach in North Devon, England. What appear to be furrows of sand are actually the rocky edges of strata tilted at some steep angle, approximately 45° judging by other images I found that I won't bother to present here. Here's the image that provides a more broad view of the beach:
If you blow this image up you can see that it is quite detailed. In the foreground you can see the rocks extending out into the water, and it is much easier to tell that they are rock and not sand. You can also see that the beach extends on down into and beneath the water representing what in geology is called a bench. The active water along the beach (in the form of waves and storms) is gradually eroding the cliff walls, and the products of erosion fall onto the beach where they are worked by the water into smaller and smaller rocks, pebbles, sand and tiny particles. Sediment is also delivered to the beach through runoff from the land. Only heavy sediments like sand, rock, pebbles, etc., will settle out in this active water near the shore. Any finer and lighter particles washed into the ocean from the land or created by the active water grinding rock and sand into finer and lighter particles will not be able to settle out near the beach and will be carried out to sea into quieter waters where they will gradually fall out of suspension. Take a careful look at the cliff face that lines the beach. Even if sea levels remain the same the cliff face will gradually erode away inland. Gentle wave action has a small effect over time just grinding away at the sand and grinding sand against the rock, while huge waves created by storms can crack rocks clean away from the cliff face. As the cliff face erodes inland the beach moves inland with it, leaving behind it a layer of sand deposited atop the edges of the tilted strata that can be so clearly seen sticking out of the sand in the first image of this message. The sediments atop the tilted strata would constitute an angular unconformity. Edge said that that angular unconformity might come to exist someday, but I don't think that's right. I think the angular unconformity is already there, because a large area of those tilted layers are already buried by a layer of sand. The sand is unlithified and unconsolidated, but I still think the term strata applies, though Edge and Moose will have to confirm. In any case it is certainly a layer of sand atop tilted strata, which is an angular unconformity. The area over which these tilted strata are buried by a layer of sand is likely huge, extending miles out into the ocean, because a million years ago the cliff face was not where we see it today. Ignoring rising and falling sea levels that no doubt occurred through various ice ages, and ignoring any uplift and subsidence that might have occurred, that cliff face would have been a few miles further out to sea to the west (west is to the right in the second image). It is highly likely that beneath the waves those tilted strata are already buried for many miles beneath a layer of sand, in other words, an angular unconformity. (Rock cliffs exposed to the sea erode at variable rates ranging from a half mile to 6 miles per million years depending upon a number of factors, like rock type, degree of exposure, whether freezing is a factor, temperature variation, number and intensity of storms, etc., see How to explain variations in sea cliff erosion rates? Insights from a literature synthesis.) Just in case you doubt cliff faces erode, check out this article about Norfolk’s disappearing village. The village of Happisburgh, Norfolk, England, is gradually disappearing into the sea as a cliff face of incompletely consolidated sand (hard but crumbly and not yet rock) is eroding at the rate of about 160 feet per decade. That's much, much faster than solid rock erodes, but it gives you an idea of how cliff faces recede:
And while it didn't involve a cliff face, perhaps you recall when they moved the Cape Hatteras Light Station (a lighthouse) in 1999. It was originally built 1500 feet from the ocean way back in 1870, but erosion of the shoreline caused the ocean to begin lapping at its foundations during storms, and they finally moved it far enough from the coast to keep it safe for another hundred years. Perhaps an aerial image of Welcombe Mouth Beach would be helpful. It's on the southeastern coast of England, south across the Bristol Channel from Wales. This is Google Maps, so you can zoom in and out, and you can drag the image around. Drag the image and view northward - you'll see that the beach with these tilted strata sticking up through the sand goes on for miles. Click on "View larger map" to put the map into a whole tab for easier viewing:
If the put on your scuba suit and swim westward out from the beach along the sea floor you will first encounter only sand, but after you swim some distance from shore the sand will give way to silt and mud. The bottom of the sand layer is likely already under a great deal of pressure, probably in the neighborhood of at least 300 pounds per square inch including the weight of the sea water. It is no doubt already beginning to push water out of the interstices between sand particles and causing some minerals to dissolve - consolidation has begun. As you swim from the beach out to sea the observed transition from a top layer of sand to a top layer of silt and mud is witness to Walther's Law in action. Silt and mud far from shore are being deposited simultaneously with sand nearer to shore. The simultaneous and adjacent deposition of different sediments combined with a migrating land/water boundary is the classic situation that causes layers to be one atop the other and is the very definition of Walther's Law. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
kjsimons writes: That and they ranged in size from ~2mm to over 700mm. Hard to believe they they could all be the same species with that variation in size. I didn't know the size variation was that great. That's a variation of 350×. Faith would no doubt cite dogs as having a large size variation, and they do. But calculating it out by height, the Chihuahua can be as small as around 4 inches tall, while the Great Dane is around 40 inches tall, a variation of a mere 10×. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So less junk DNA then, more junk DNA now. More functioning genes then, less functioning genes now. How is that not a change? And why didn't the trilobites survive the Flood? Yes that is a change, but it's a normal change due to microevolution, which would produce junk DNA over many generations. I thought we were talking about a structural difference in the genome itself, from a supergenome lilke one with polyploidy or something like that, to today's familiar structure by which traits are governed by genes, maybe several but still fewer than on the ark. But yes if you want to talk about the effects of evolution on the genome, today's is different in that respect. Since a tiny percentage of all living things still living since the Flood, there is also with just a tiny percentage of the genetic diversity left for each creature, and yet it was enough at the time of the Flood to produce all the variations of each Kind we see today. I think this ought to be intuitively obvious but I suppose I need to find clearer ways of explaining it. I've wondered myself why all the trilobites died out. But I did see somewhere that there is a land-adapted species of trilobite living today. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I didn't know the size variation was that great. That's a variation of 350. Faith would no doubt cite dogs as having a large size variation, and they do. But calculating it out by height, the Chihuahua can be as small as around 4 inches tall, while the Great Dane is around 40 inches tall, a variation of a mere 10. You are right I would point to the dog Yes this is my own theory of course, that I've been arguing for the last decade or so. I don't know if it would ever be possible to persuade anyone here of it but it seems to me to hold together very well; it's certainly consistent. If there are better ways to argue for it I hope I run across them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I certainly have no problem with even extreme erosion of cliffs, but I can't regard some sand on top of tilted and apparently deeply buried siltstone layers as an angular unconformity, just as there is no way that I can see how any current landscape could ever become a slab of rock such as we see in the geo/strat columns. I understand I'm probably not going to be able to persuade anyone of this, though I'll keep trying anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Yes that is a change, but it's a normal change due to microevolution, which would produce junk DNA over many generations. Yes. But this argument is horse-ca-ca. You are just talking in general about changes, but we know for a fact that there are at least some changes that are due to there being more alleles for a specific gene location than there were available alleles among Noah and his family. So whatever your general explanation is, your explanation fails to explain the genetic diversity that exists for those specific cases, meaning that it cannot be the complete explanation. If you want to be reminded of the specific examples that we have previously discussed before, just ask. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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 No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How do you test, replicate or in any way validate the idea that time periods as indicated in the rocks actually existed as landscapes with living things populating them? In the face of the response I gave previously, your answer is idiotic. The living things left behind traces which we can observe. Those traces have been discussed here numerous times. I don't expect that you would agree with the conclusions that have been reached. But I would expect that you were at least familiar with the evidence by now. How are the traces of those living things in any way evidence of the notion that they lived in a particular time period? That's the problem. Yes there are specific fossils in specific layers but that proves nothing about time periods. It's such an ingrained assumption, however, it's apparently impossible to see how it's a theory and remains a theory without any way to test or prove it. You also can't figure out what I'm trying to do, but since what I'm trying to do is so far from the mainstream assumptions that's understandable, if frustrating and annoying to be constantly accused of lying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Extra alleles are the result of mutations that are mostly deleterious, and yes I am talking about general principles.
Those many "alleles" which are really just mutations, most of which are deleterious, are also mostly on their way to becoming junk DNA for that reason, which is therefore actually a reduction in genetic diversity rather than an increase . No good thing for any species. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024