Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 811 of 2887 (828708)
02-22-2018 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 809 by edge
02-22-2018 5:04 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
are not talking about continuous, straight and planar, pure strata, right? So how does that explain the Grand Canyon that you talk about?
Don't get your question.
I just want to see you explain the steps between ANY landscape, which the fossils in a given rock tell you existed on that spot, and the rock itself. Address that, please. Pick any rock and show how the scenario you think it represents became the rock. Pick it from the Grand Canyon or anywhere else you like. Take the "land side of the boundary" then.
The Shinumo quartzite monadnock penetrated up through the strata after the strata were already laid down but still wet.
Are you even thinking of HOW flat those strata are? How straight the contact line is?
"Kayenta swamps and seas." OK, I see there is no way to have this discussion because your interpretations are too bizarre for me. To call some features of a slab of rock "Kayenta swamps and seas" is just too much imaginative reification for me. I hereby drop this whole effort, standard Geology is just too weird.
ABE: Well, I guess I SHOULD have asked you to show how you get from those swamps and seas to the rock you say is where they used to be. Lost my bearings there.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 5:04 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 812 by Taq, posted 02-22-2018 5:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 5:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 822 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 10:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 812 of 2887 (828709)
02-22-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
02-22-2018 5:14 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Faith writes:
I just want to see you explain the steps between ANY landscape, which the fossils in a given rock tell you existed on that spot, and the rock itself. Address that, please.
Go to any lake and start taking sections out of the lake bottom near the shore. I am sure you will find plenty of twigs, leaves, insects, and even fish bones buried in that mud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 5:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 5:35 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 813 of 2887 (828710)
02-22-2018 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
02-22-2018 5:14 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Faith writes:
wamps and seas." OK, I see there is no way to have this discussion because your interpretations are too bizarre for me. To call some features of a slab of rock "Kayenta swamps and seas" is just too much imaginative reification for me. I hereby drop this whole effort, standard Geology is just too weird.
ABE: Well, I guess I SHOULD have asked you to show how you get from those swamps and seas to the rock you say is where they used to be. Lost my bearings there.
You've got these swamps and seas and they are going to end up represented by a rock in a stack of rocks all very flat. Just show the steps between them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 5:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 814 of 2887 (828712)
02-22-2018 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by Taq
02-22-2018 5:29 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Faith writes:
I just want to see you explain the steps between ANY landscape, which the fossils in a given rock tell you existed on that spot, and the rock itself. Address that, please.
Go to any lake and start taking sections out of the lake bottom near the shore. I am sure you will find plenty of twigs, leaves, insects, and even fish bones buried in that mud.
So if you are implying that mud might have ended up as a flat mudstone rock in the stratigraphic column, the task I'm asking of you is to show how the lake bottom mud became that rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Taq, posted 02-22-2018 5:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 816 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2018 6:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 828 by Taq, posted 02-23-2018 12:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 815 of 2887 (828714)
02-22-2018 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 803 by mike the wiz
02-22-2018 2:43 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
The fact is, if there are kinds of organism, such as bats, and they show no evolution even their earliest form, when we might expect to find their ancestors if the fossils are an evolutionary history, then this isn't good evidence of macro evolution if we find identical kinds that look the same today.
1. Bats do show evolution from their early forms.
2. There is no expectation of finding their ancestors.
3. If you want good fossil evidence, probably best to look to animals that fossilize well.
Just picking out shrimp, and using observer bias to ignore all of the specific ones on that list, doesn't change the fact that some have simply remained unchanged, and don't show any intermediates for how they allegedly evolved.
Pretty sure they have changed, and you are picking out some and ignoring others by looking at the list. We don't expect every taxon to evolve at the same rate or to leave fossil evidence of its ancestry. It is predicted by evolutionary mathematics that certain forms will be stable (see Sewell Wright), and moving from them to a significant degree will result in a reduction in fitness. Stasis in some branches of life is expected and there is nothing to suggest that stasis must ever be broken to any significant degree (significant enough to satisfy you that is)
We don't expect the murderer's fingerprints to exist at every murder scene. Where they exist, they provide evidence - but just because fingerprints are sometimes left behind it doesn't mean that if we don't find them no murder has occurred. That's simply not a logical position to take.
For example a bat had to evolve from a quadrupedal progenitor, so it's forelimbs had to become wings as they presently are, but all we find is bats with the fully designed wing,
Whatever we find, if we ever find it, and there's no reason to propose any of its remains are still around to be found - will be fully designed.
none of the intermediates because they never existed
Not a logical conclusion. That's a reason. Another reason is that they were never preserved. Another reason is that those that were preserved in such a way as to survive till today were destroyed by erosion or other geological movement. Another reason would be that they are preserved but they are in a place we haven't discovered yet. There's a lot of ground - and most of it doesn't get excavated for fossils.
same for pterosaurs, we only find a variety of pterosaurs, or a variety of bats, variety of Ichthyosaurs, never the transitionals they purportedly evolved from.
So there are some things which don't provide great fossil evidence of the kind of evolution you want to see. So what? If we want to study their evolutionary position - molecular / genetic methods still exist.
No, but rather what I am saying is that this record of 100% stasis that actually has no evolution but either still extant or extinct animal kinds, doesn't show any evolution and this is evidence bats were always bats, since I expect to see some ancestors somewhere, heck show me just one that has it's intermediates, that can't be debunked?
To reiterate - this is not evidence that bats were always bats. It's simply evidence of bats, it does not say anything about whether or not they evolved from ancestral forms.
You can expect to see ancestors, but evolution doesn't. Evolution says nothing about whether certain things will fossilize or whether certain primates will uncover any such fossils should they exist.
Of the hundreds of thousands, or millions of Archaeopteryx that ever lived only about a dozen fossils have been found - all in the same geographical area that offered as favourable conditions for fossilization as one can hope for. Had that layer been buried deep, eroded away or had the environment been such that it never formed - we'd have zero fossils.
The fossil record is a sample of life on earth, not an encyclopaedic bestiary of all life.
I can not just show you one bat that has intermediates, but all of them. Meet Eomaia. I understand it's not what you were looking for, but it meets the description nevertheless.
But one is not enough, what about the Cambrian? An explosion indeed, extinct forms yes, but where is their evolution?
Erm, in the pre-Cambrian. The 'explosion' is a sampling artefact. It represents a time when more fossilizable forms appeared. It was an explosions over a very long period, and there is a pre-Cambrian period that does have fossils. And again, evolution does not predict all organisms' ancestors will fossilize and be preserved for all time.
This is a backwards way of looking. The fossils we have give us a clear picture of the changes life has gone through over time. The fact that the Cambrian fossils exists show that life changed from the types of fossils that existed pre-Cambrian and that life changed to what we find post-Cambrian.
Not being able to construct a complete history of all life due to insufficient evidence does not suggest evolution didn't happen. What we have shows that it did - life has changed, the fossils clearly show that.
The question then is, what was the mechanism of change? The theory of evolution has this covered and a combination of evidence strongly supports this.
Detailed analysis further shows a nested cladogram that includes all life, strongly suggesting common ancestry of all extant life. It does not follow from anything anyone proposes that all ancestors must be found in the fossil record, nor that all fossils are ancestral to extant life.
If you rolled a six-sided dice every day and took a selfie whenever you rolled a six. The scar that appears over your eyebrow between two photographs may have unclear origins - but it doesn't prove the scar instantly appeared through divine intervention. The injury that caused the scar occurred over some period of time, a period of time too short to be captured by your sporadic selfie sampling method (ie., a few fractions of a second to a few seconds). There may be occasional moments where your selfie happens to take place at the exact moment a significant change occurs (eg you lose a baby tooth at the moment of one of the early shots and it can be seen unconnected on a floorwards trajectory as you smile).
Just admit it, the fossil record supports the creationist position
It does not. There is not a single fossil of an organism in the middle of being specially created by what can be nothing other than a deity. Which, using your reasoning, must mean that it didn't happen.
we would expect to find bats without any history of evolution because they were created to be bats.
Sure, but that doesn't support your position, it's a fact that doesn't falsify it. There are many such facts. The colour of grass, for instance.
All you have to do now, is tackle the fossil record as a whole, not just a select group of them which don't falsify whatever version of creationism you are thinking of. The patterns, the synergy with biogeography and genetics. The whole evidence, not ...what was it you said... ' using observer bias to ignore all' the evidence that challenges it.
You can deny it if you want, I myself as a student of logical, cannot ignore sound deductive reason.
You didn't use deductive reasoning to make your point. You suggested a lack of some evidence proves that God must be responsible. This is obviously not a logically deductive statement, nor is it sound. Here is your position in a logically sound form
P1) If there is no evidence of the origins of something, God is responsible for its creation.
P2) There is no evidence of the origins of bats
C) God created bats.
P1 is complete not necessarily true.
P2 is not true
C cannot be therefore be made.
It simply follows this is the evidence expected from created kinds, not evolution, or show me the intermediates to all of them.
Let's say you are correct that the evidence of bat fossils (and others) is consistent with created kinds.
It is also consistent with evolution which does not say all intermediate forms will be both fossilized and discovered by humans by February 2018.
Therefore the evidence of bats is not evidence that can allow us to discern between the special creation hypothesis and the evolution hypothesis.
Of course I've said all this to you before, I predict your position will not change as a result of this.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 803 by mike the wiz, posted 02-22-2018 2:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 816 of 2887 (828715)
02-22-2018 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by Faith
02-22-2018 5:35 PM


mudstone
So if you are implying that mud might have ended up as a flat mudstone rock in the stratigraphic column, the task I'm asking of you is to show how the lake bottom mud became that rock.
Erm, I...erm...OK.
Mud piles on top of mud. This compresses the mud underneath it. This squeezes the water out. As more mud settles on the top, the more pressure compresses the lower mud, the less water it holds as the gaps where the water sits shrink. Eventually sufficient water is expelled to 'cement' the mud into mudrock. This process is called lithification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 5:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 817 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 6:40 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 820 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 9:21 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 817 of 2887 (828717)
02-22-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 816 by Modulous
02-22-2018 6:14 PM


Re: mudstone
Now show how it gets so very flat over a very extensive area and gets itself sandwiched between other sedimentary rocks of different types containing different fossils, all the surrounding terrain no longer in evidence.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2018 6:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 819 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2018 7:18 PM Faith has replied
 Message 821 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 9:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 818 of 2887 (828719)
02-22-2018 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by mike the wiz
02-22-2018 1:45 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Utter bullshit Mikey. The Bible contradicts itself by including two mutually exclusive flood myths all mixed up together.
As soon as someone introduces the Bible as so factual or historical account the proper response is to pat them on the head and send them back to the kiddy table.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by mike the wiz, posted 02-22-2018 1:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 819 of 2887 (828720)
02-22-2018 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 817 by Faith
02-22-2018 6:40 PM


Re: mudstone
Now show how it gets so very flat over a very extensive area and gets itself sandwiched between other sedimentary rocks of different types containing different fossils, all the surrounding terrain no longer in evidence.
Well, the lake would have to form on something, so that would be bottom of the sandwhich. Water and wind would tend towards eroding lumpiness of the bottom layer.
The mud that goes on top of it is likely to form a flat surface because it is wet and it will settle flat. Any additional lumpiness that forms may also be eroded over time by the water. When the lake dries up the top layer of mud may well be eroded away leaving the flat middle layer of the sandwich. Then some other depositional environment deposits sediment in a different way on top of this middle layer to create the top layer. The different depositional environment results in a different type of sedimentary rock formation.
If the sediment is derived from the surrounding terrain, this would take care of that part of the situation too, but maybe some of that that was eroded and deposited elsewhere by wind.
So let's see - the first layer contains marine life from a million years ago, the middle layer contains lake life from 600,000 years ago and the third layer contains land fossils from 250,000 years ago as it was I dunno a swamp. Each layer is flat, the surrounding contemporaneous terrain was eroded away to create those layers, and organisms that died in the sea/lake/swamp may have been buried in such a ways to preserve their remains in some fashion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 817 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 6:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 02-23-2018 3:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 820 of 2887 (828722)
02-22-2018 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 816 by Modulous
02-22-2018 6:14 PM


Re: mudstone
Mud piles on top of mud. This compresses the mud underneath it. This squeezes the water out. As more mud settles on the top, the more pressure compresses the lower mud, the less water it holds as the gaps where the water sits shrink. Eventually sufficient water is expelled to 'cement' the mud into mudrock.
Well, we would call it 'mudstone'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2018 6:14 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 821 of 2887 (828724)
02-22-2018 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 817 by Faith
02-22-2018 6:40 PM


Re: mudstone
Now show how it gets so very flat over a very extensive area and gets itself sandwiched between other sedimentary rocks of different types containing different fossils, all the surrounding terrain no longer in evidence.
Well, considering that the previous lowlands have been filled with sediment. it should be easy to visualize. Then new sediments are deposited on top and they have younger fossils. The surrounding areas are likewise covered be renewed sedimentation.
By this point in time, small fluctuations in sea level over a larger area, result in extensive sedimentary layers.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. But feel free to ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 817 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 6:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 822 of 2887 (828725)
02-22-2018 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
02-22-2018 5:14 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
The Shinumo quartzite monadnock penetrated up through the strata after the strata were already laid down but still wet.
So, did the Shinumo also force itself up from the Hakatai and the Dox formations above and below it?
In other words, why does the Shinumo form a topographic high compared to the formations above and below it? Some kind of weird tectonics? Or why do the Hakatai and the Dox not also 'penetrate into the overlying strata'?
Please describe this phenomenon if it's not due to prior erosion of the GC Supergroup erosion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 5:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 11:00 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 823 of 2887 (828726)
02-22-2018 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 822 by edge
02-22-2018 10:51 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
I've many times described my hypothesis of how the Great Unconformity came abour, and the Shinumo monadnock was part of that whole movement of basement rocks beneath the stack of strata above. The movement broke off the ends of the Supergroup and the quartzite was harder than the other rocks so it didn't break as easily and one piece of it was thrust upward through the Tapeats and into higher layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 10:51 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 11:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 825 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2018 12:13 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 824 of 2887 (828727)
02-22-2018 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
02-22-2018 11:00 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
I've many times described my hypothesis of how the Great Unconformity came abour, and the Shinumo monadnock was part of that whole movement of basement rocks beneath the stack of strata above. The movement broke off the ends of the Supergroup and the quartzite was harder than the other rocks so it didn't break as easily and one piece of it was thrust upward through the Tapeats and into higher layers. (bold added for emphasis)
So then we should see evidence of shearing not only along the unconformity but also along the Shinumo contacts with over and underlying formations, yes?
The point being that you have never provided evidence for shearing along the unconformity.
ABE: Let me try to clarify here. First you say that the Great Unconformity is actually a fault caused by movement of the lower rocks (Vishnu) that did not affect the upper plate of rocks. Not only is this mechanically unstable, there is no evidence for shearing between the upper and lower blocks.
Now you are saying the the Shinumo monadnocks were thrust up across the Great Unconformity into the Tapeats so that they now look like buried hills?
So, why do the Dox and Hakatai not also penetrate across the Great Unconformity? In order to do this you need the Shinumo to act independently of the other two formations. That means they should show relative motion (fault contacts) with the Shinumo. But there is no such evidence. Do I read you correctly?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 11:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by Faith, posted 02-23-2018 2:44 PM edge has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 825 of 2887 (828729)
02-23-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
02-22-2018 11:00 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
I've many times described my hypothesis of how the Great Unconformity came abour ...
That was the hypothesis that involves a zillion tons of rock disappearing into thin air in violation of basic physical law, yes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 11:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by Faith, posted 02-23-2018 5:15 AM Dr Adequate 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