Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?

Sonic, Specifically, what you agreed to was this, So when Darwin hypothesised large scale evolution, & made predictions based upon future discoveries in the fossil record, why is this not evidence? Are you deliberately being obtuse? You can't claim predictions are evidence, but not when it supports macroevolution. Neither would I. But it's irrelevant. The point is that predictions were made on the basis of future discoveries. The transitionals were discovered after Darwin (& Lamarck et al.) hypothesised large scale evolution. No, I don't. You are back to that ridiculous position in which no evidence is admissible to support the existence of electrons unless electrons are proven. Ergo, elecrons don't exist, & nor can they ever be shown to. Utter nonsense.And science doesn't "prove" anything beyond a doubt. It shows things to be supported to such a high degree that to withhold consent is unreasonable. If 2.04*10^90 : 1 isn't proven within reasonable doubt, then you are a lost cause.2,040,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of the results being due to chance rather than evolution, above & beyond the statistical chance of random congruence occurring.This as proven as it gets in science. What you "feel" is irrelevant subjectivism. Cladistics has been tested on known phylogenies & it w-o-r-k-s.Furthermore, you don't understand what's at work here. The evolutionary assumption implicitly associated with cladograms is being tested. The results are very, very positive. The results, if evolution hadn't happened would be a low level of congruence. There would be a statistical change of congruence, of course (which I believe is your objection), but this can be calculated (& I did). The congruence is not low, it is very good indeed, & the chances against all those cladograms corrobrating with the fossil record if evolution were false is staggering. It is similar to the number of fundamental particles in the universe : 1.If you still "feel" that macroevolution hadn't occurred, then you are doing so against mind boggling evidence.Let me put it another way, the chance that the similarites are due to random chance rather than indicators of relatedness is 2,040,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1. We haven't even factored in all the supporting embryological, morphological & genetic atavistic data, all of which tells the same story. You must live in a world of amazing coincidences, Sonic.Mark added some spaces to fix page width - The Queen------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-30-2003]

Sonic, It's not supposed to be, There is no reason why all characters should evolve at the same rate. It's called mosaic evolution. Characters don't all smoothly evolve in microevolution, why should they in macroevolution?Mark

Sonic, Even if you remove the dating methods you are left with a relative ordering that falsifies the creation account.Mark

Read the flood threads here. And the flood is your theory. Defend it first, explain what you think happened and how it produced what you see today. Since, it begins to appear, that no two creationists have the same flood idea it is necessary to know what your's is before we can "defend" against them.Timeline: You'll have to show what is wrong with the dating before you get to ignore it. Mark has opened a thread for you with some information for you to explain.
EvC Forum: Radiometric Dating For Sonic.Let's leave the critisms for now. Those that I am referring to are all through the scientific literature. You don't seem to be keeping up with what is here so you don't have time for anymore I don't think.Some of our actual practising scientists might direct you to some specific examples. (Come to think of it you can get a laymans idea of how it might work by looking over the great hairy ones discussions about megafauna extinction here, it is not "real" but it gives you an idea )
http://EvC Forum: Overkill, Overchill, Overill? Megafaunal extinction causes -->EvC Forum: Overkill, Overchill, Overill? Megafaunal extinction causes[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003]

It's hard to understand what you meant, exactly, as I'm not sure why you would draw a distinction between a "macro"-transitional fossil and a "micro"-transitional fossil. Fossils are both.It doesn't make sense. St. Louis is macro-transitional between New York and L.A, but it's micro-transitional between Indianapolis and Jefferson City. It's both.Fossils are both. Whether or not it's a macro- or micro-transitional fossil depends on what two things you're looking at it as a transitional of. Like, the way that the distance of a midpoint of a line to either end depends entirely on the distance between the two ends.

-part of sonics post-

quote:

---

You pointed out that I dont agree that the fossil record is evidence. But then also pointed out that I agree with the process of science which is: evidence,theroy,more evidence to back it up. What is so hard about my place in this process.

---

Yes? Ok, I agree to that process, that is, if that is the process their would be no point in not agreeing. Ok, Lets see if I can explain this without being to confusing. When we think of the "TOE" we think of Organic Evolution. In order for me to say "the fossil record is evidence of organic evolution" you have to have more fossils then what we currently have so that we have a fine grained transition. I understand that the teachings from evolutionists states that we most likely wont have all the fossils ever. The problem is, Who says those fine grained tranitionals or intermediate fossils actually exists? I do understand that you pointed out that Darwin predicted that if more transitional fossils are found that it would be evidence of "TOE". The problem I see with this is, just because Darwin predicted that more transitional fossils would be found and they would represent evidence of organic evolution, that does not mean that Darwin was right. I mean I can make predictions all day long about certain things which seem true and say if this happends I am right about my theory, but really who says that I am right about my theory, just because my predictions happen? I would presume those who follow me would, but really, does that really mean I am right or was right. Compare this to Darwin, same question asked, does this mean that the "TOE" really occured just because he said more fossils would be found? NO. So I arrest my case, just because more fossils where found does not mean "TOE" is factual and just because the fossil record APPEARS to show evolution WRT evolutionists, that does not mean that Darwin was right about organic evolution.-my quote-

quote:

---

I dont think the fossil record is evidence of evolution which sticks me before the process of science. I would not have ever said, back when they foudn the fossil record to be evidence, that it was evidence.

---

Ok. And? I presume this is supposed to mean that the "TOE" actually occured just because a few predictions where made regarding fossils being found and fossils where found. So Just because fossils where found after he made the prediction means that organic evolution occured? I hope not, I hope you got more then that.-my quote-

quote:

---

You are right, it is no-ones fault that they have found fossils which seem to be transitional fossils according to evolutionists, to me they are not really transitional fossils they are just fossils. You have to prove to me that macro occured without a doubt

---

Big number, I posted a few posts back that you seem to think that is regarding relatedness of species, NO, it is regarding similarities between species so that is a huge number/1 possible chance that we are similar to other species. So what if I am similiar to other species how does being similar make me a descendent of the species I am similar too? I already knew that we are similar to other species, that does not mean that infact we are descendents of other species. Maybe I am not catching what you are saying but it seems to me that I have alot of similarites to my friends, which is why we get along, but I am infact not a descendent of my friends parents because that would make me a brother to all my friends which is not true. It seems to me that you are trying to say that I am a descendent of ape just because I am similar to them or even better metaphore, I am a brother of all my friends because I am similar to them. Is that true, NO. Maybe you can explain to me a little better what this phylogene does exactly but that is what I got from it and from you, so I think that says that the phylogene is talking about similarities and not relatedness.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

Because other evidence of evolution(i.e. not the TOE) speaks of this fine grained transition. Such as when you look at all the skin colors from black to white, you see a nice smooth fine grained transition.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Perhaps their are other answers for that. We should however stick to the fossil record and not open up other debates.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Thank you------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

quote:

---

It's hard to understand what you meant, exactly, as I'm not sure why you would draw a distinction between a "macro"-transitional fossil and a "micro"-transitional fossil. Fossils are both.

---

My point was not to distinguish between them, but that there needs be more of a balance in the fossil record with a greater quantity of Macro fossils than exists.

Since you think there needs to be more than "exists", how many exist and how many more need there be for there to be enough?What is a "balance in the fossil record"? What would you expect it to look like if your ideas are correct as contrasted to what it would look like if the ToE is correct? It is making such distinctions between different ideas and checking them against the evidence that progresses our understanding in science.Do you have any idea that suggests what there should be and would your idea produce a different outcome than the ToE?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-01-2003]

Sonic, Stop right there. You have dodged the point again, which was that intermediate & transitional fossils are evidence of evolution. You agreed AGAIN to my statement above, & STILL deny transitionals are evidence of the ToE, despite them being predicted. You agree borne out predictions are evidence, but evoke special pleading when it comes to the ToE & macroevolution. This is hypocritical. Correct, it is evidence that he was right. Not unequivocal in itself, but evidence nonetheless.You have absolutely NO reason to expect more transitions than are currently in collections. Your rejection of the FACT that fossils can be inferred to be transitionals is therefore spurious. Make no mistake, if you made predictions & they were subsequently discovered to be true, you would have evidence.Evidence doesn't provide a truth/false statement about a theory. It reduces the tentativity for the hypothesis in question. And when the evidence corroborates with other evidence the tentativity is reduced a lot. It means that there is evidence of the ToE. The tentativity of the theory is lowered. ....They were subsequently discovered & provided evidence for Darwin's theory, obviously. You forget the other evidence that the ToE is based upon. Remember the power of corroborative evidence? You missed the point completely.2.04*10^90 : 1 are the odds that you are wrong. It represents the odds against the "similarities" lining up pure chance, & being due to common descent. Morphological & genetic "similarities" are being tested to see if there is a signal based upon relationships. As you can see, there is a clear signal present showing common descent is responsible for the similarities.The similarites & forms "morph" in cladograms over time, & match the geological record. Coincidence? 2.04*10^90 : 1 says no, no , NO!!! It screams common descent from the rooftops.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Sonic, But you agreed that the fossil record was incomplete? Are you now retracting?Mark

I gotta say MARK you are not only consistant but funny. I am on a ledge getting ready to jump because I REALLY have nothing else to say to the world regarding creationism. LOLI posted all these posts before I got into your thread about dating. The fossil record is my last attempt to speaking on the defense with creationism. I gotta say it is very possible since I have fallen from the Macro/micro debate, from the dating debate, that I will fall yet a 3rd time. I just hope that their is more foundation in the evolutionist world then what you have shown me.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Just because the fossil record is not complete WRT darwinism/evolutionsm, it does not mean that those fossils ever existed on the bases of creationism, but I also realize that this can also be based from evolutionism so it is a very weak argument.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]