Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


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 256 of 2887 (769902)
09-26-2015 1:03 PM


My latest challenge to the fossil record claims
These thoughts from my previous post are being ignored in the answers to it so far so I'd like to bring them to your attention again:
And I do often wonder just HOW universal it really is. Once you're convinced it's this ironclad proof of evolution you aren't going to be very open to raising questions about it. Apparently insignificant deviations from the pattern could be overlooked, rationalized away etc.
One thing that keeps coming to mind is why each layer/time period seems to be characterized by a dominant kind of life, while former kinds, those in the lower layers, seem to be much less in evidence. I'm not sure how true this is but most representations of the fossil record emphasize the apparent sequence that fits the taxonomic tree and whatever else shares the layer is generally overlooked. Isn't it true that the nautiloids that Steve Austin studied occupy that one and only layer in the redwall limestone? Why wouldn't you see nautiloids above that layer too, or do you? In significant numbers of course. There are billions of them in that one layer, it's THEIR layer, but surely we know the earth was never populated by just one kind of life and the nautiloid is a fairly large complex creature for there not to be an abundance of evolutionary precursors. But where are they? And isn't this a common situation from layer to layer?
The dinosaurs supposedly went extinct at a specific point in time so that's the explanation for their nonappearance above the time periods they're associated with. The coelacanth that was once thought to be extinct is now known to be living but IIRC it showed up in the Devonian and then not again until, I forget, the Quaternary?, and that was the end of its fossil record. Why the long gap? Actually gaps plural. Weren't there any coelacanths in between the Devonian and its later appearance, or above that latest appearance? If not why not? It's of course possible to rationalize anything like this away, but I think it raises serious questions about the meaning of the fossil record.
Do believers in evolution raise these questions?
ABE: I'm sure the contents of a particular layer aren't considered to be the entire range of life on the planet during that period of time, but that IS the way the information is often presented, and there does seem to be a paucity of varied life forms in most of the layers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by edge, posted 09-26-2015 1:12 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 257 of 2887 (769903)
09-26-2015 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
09-26-2015 12:57 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
But when you say the evolutionary interpretation is a fact aren't you essentially calling it proof?
Faith, you are not discussing 'proof', you are asking for absolute proof. We deal in evidence and where it leads us. Our 'proof' is in the preponderance of evidence.
Your denial of evidence is not supported by any of your assertions.
Saying it's a fact that it's a bunch of fossilized life forms doesn't exclude other facts about it.
Then stop avoiding those facts when you make a statement.
It doesn't look all that "well supported" from here, since it lacks hard evidence.
Well, it should be understood that this all refers to reasonable people.
And it's hard to find out it's wrong when it's mostly conjectures.
Nonsense. It would be like leaving out a structural element of airliner that confronts the reality of actually flying.
The theory of evolution has been flying for a couple of centuries now...
There's something self-validating about the ToE that isn't scientifically kosher.
Or it could be a robust theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 12:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 1:14 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 258 of 2887 (769904)
09-26-2015 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
09-26-2015 1:03 PM


These thoughts from my previous post are being ignored in the answers to it so far so I'd like to bring them to your attention again:
And I do often wonder just HOW universal it really is. Once you're convinced it's this ironclad proof of evolution you aren't going to be very open to raising questions about it. Apparently insignificant deviations from the pattern could be overlooked, rationalized away etc.
Well, there you go.
You have just invalidated the rest of your point by committing the fallacy of a strawman argument.
No reason to read any further...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 1:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 1:19 PM edge has replied

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


Message 259 of 2887 (769905)
09-26-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by edge
09-26-2015 1:09 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
The theory of evolution has been flying for a couple of centuries now...
Well, it's a castle in the air, hard to shoot down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by edge, posted 09-26-2015 1:09 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2015 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 260 of 2887 (769906)
09-26-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
09-26-2015 12:34 PM


Faith writes:
I'm very surprised this would be considered controversial.
The statement that evolution survives because scientists don't dare upset the status quo is not controversial, just wrong, but that you introduce this argument again and again as if for the first time is rather dubious. It's frequently drawn rebuttals whenever you've stated it, but I don't recall a response from you. If you do have one then you or someone should open a new thread to discuss it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 12:34 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 261 of 2887 (769907)
09-26-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by edge
09-26-2015 1:12 PM


I thought that was just psychologically true for anyone, I wasn't casting aspersions on you. We're all subject to blindness to other ways of looking at something we've been convinced of.
I would still like your attention to the questions I thought might be overlooked for such a reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by edge, posted 09-26-2015 1:12 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by edge, posted 09-26-2015 1:47 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 262 of 2887 (769908)
09-26-2015 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
09-26-2015 1:14 PM


A challenge to Faith
quote:
Well, it's a castle in the air, hard to shoot down.
If you really think that you can shoot down a genuine sscientific theory by lying about it, please demonstrate this ability. I'll even let you choose the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 1:14 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 263 of 2887 (769910)
09-26-2015 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
09-26-2015 1:19 PM


I thought that was just psychologically true for anyone, I wasn't casting aspersions on you.
In that case, you are projecting. You deal in absolute, revealed truth and that trumps everything.
Few actually scientists are like that, when doing science.
We're all subject to blindness to other ways of looking at something we've been convinced of.
Yes, until the evidence forces change. And since the evidence points toward evolution, we will use it as a scientific fact until the evidence points elsewhere.
I would still like your attention to the questions I thought might be overlooked for such a reason.
Not sure what you mean here, but I'll look at this statement:
ABE: I'm sure the contents of a particular layer aren't considered to be the entire range of life on the planet during that period of time, but that IS the way the information is often presented, ...
Not as far as I know.
... and there does seem to be a paucity of varied life forms in most of the layers.
Do we have to explain that again?
Look, I know you would like us to provide complete, perfect and consistent knowledge about everything, because that's what you think you already have. But that's not realistic in the this world. However, even without such complete knowledge, we can draw some pretty compelling conclusions.
On the other hand, what have you got?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 1:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 1:49 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 264 of 2887 (769911)
09-26-2015 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by edge
09-26-2015 1:47 PM


... and there does seem to be a paucity of varied life forms in most of the layers.
Do we have to explain that again?
Well, my memory must be a lot worse than I thought. I absolutely do not remember this ever coming up before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by edge, posted 09-26-2015 1:47 PM edge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 265 of 2887 (769913)
09-26-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
09-26-2015 12:20 PM


Just the Facts, Mam,
Yes it is not hard evidence as I've been saying. It is fossilized creatures embedded in sedimentary layers, that is all it is.
So now you reject the facts that Ned provided earlier.
Faith, you're going to have to make up your mind here.
Ned's list of facts is in Message 216. I just read it and have no problem with any of those facts. They are the hard facts; the theory is something else that is imposed on those facts. He did a good job of sticking to the facts themselves.
It is fossilized creatures embedded in relatively dated sedimentary layers, layers dated by their positioning of one over the other, layers showing a time sequence. Hard geological evidence.
Message 216 (Ned):
1. There are layered fossil baring rocks all over the world.
2. Without referring to absolute ages or even specifying if they are measured in thousands of years or millions of years we can note that on a relative basis older* layers do not contain many of the fossils that are included in newer layers. In fact, with layers far enough apart in relative ages the fossil collections are utterly different.
3. In more detail: there are reptile like fossils in older layers than mammal like fossils and not the reverse.
4. In even more detail there are layers with reptiles like skeletons that have jaws that are not at all like mammalian jaws. In higher layers there are skeletons that do have mammalian jaws. In all layers (times) above a certain point there are mammal like jaws found.
5. Between the newest (highest) layers with no mammal like jaws found and the oldest (lowest) layers with actual mammal like jaws found are layers with skeletons with jaws that are intermediate between full reptile like jaws and mammal like jaws in a layer depth (time) ordered squence from less mammal like lower down to more mammal like higher up.
In even more detail the intermediate fossils are found in intermediate layers, demonstrating an intermediate time between those above and those below, putting the intermediate fossils on a time-line from oldest at the bottom to latest at the top.
And the fossils show shared derived traits that put them in a clade. Later (higher layer elevation) fossils show modified traits derived from earlier (lower layer elevation) fossils, with several traits (jaw and ear) showing modified derived traits of previously modified derived traits.
It is the apparent sequence which is interpreted as ancient to modern living things that is imposed on it that turns it into evidence.
Because it is completely based on the subjective assessment of morphologies. ...
And on their relative position in the time relative layers showing a time-line between them.
Nor is it a "subjective assessment" because it is reproducible by different people. If it were subjective then there would not be the massive agreement among scientists that it is a bona fide time dependent sequence.
... But if you arrange them, say, by DNA characteristics of each species, perhaps how many genes etc, you would have to make a different sequence. ...
Don't make up arguments based on evidence that is not available -- that is pure imagination. In addition, your vision of genetics is faulty as is being discussed on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity.
...The idea of their relative ages is completely imposed on the facts, without evidence.
No, Faith, it is completely observed based on the different levels of the different layers, layers that are hard evidence of the time sequence.
Ignoring hard evidence does not make it go away.
Then explain to us how interpretations are intrinsically erroneous.
They aren't, they could be correct, but they aren't hard evidence and shouldn't be treated as hard evidence. So when a creationist comes along and challenges the interpretation it shouldn't be defended with a wall of assertions that it is as good as hard evidence. It isn't.
For a creationist to actually challenge the science they need to do science that challenges the interpretation, not just made up wild fantasies, ignorance and denial. Saying you disagree doesn't challenge the science, it just makes you a doubter. Until you have science to challenge the interpretation then yes, the current scientific explanation IS the best available.
The order is very suggestive as I keep saying, but it can't be treated as proof of evolution. I don't know why the pattern is so apparently consistent, but when there are other reasons to question the standard interpretation it can't just be taken as fact.
Would you not agree that "so apparently consistent" a pattern is strong evidence that it is more correct than just a random pile of fossils?
That the time/location/development sequence is validation of the Theory of Evolution, ... because it is what the theory predicts. It is hard actual objective evidence that the ToE does in fact explain the diversity of life.
If you don't think it is the best explanation, then provide another one that covers ALL the known facts.
And I do often wonder just HOW universal it really is. Once you're convinced it's this ironclad proof of evolution you aren't going to be very open to raising questions about it. Apparently insignificant deviations from the pattern could be overlooked, rationalized away etc. ...
No Faith, that is the creationist approach, in science these things get reviewed by other scientists looking for errors -- it's called peer review.
Do believers in evolution raise these questions?
They've been raised and answered and reviewed and answered again. And they have found evidence that supports the answers, like the iridium layer.
No, for whatever reason there is a pattern to the fossils so when you understand the pattern you can predict from it where to find more examples of the pattern. I don't know how often your predictions pan out but there's no obvious reason they shouldn't. ...
Often enough. Tiktaalik is one example of predicting the find of an intermediate tetrapod based on the spatial/temporal matrix that the theor of evolution predicted that such a transitional would live. Homo naledi and Au. sediba were also predicted to be found, as were a number of hominid fossils. It is pretty safe to say that no paleontologist will look in modern sedimentary deposits for ancient fossils.
... The pattern is a fact but its interpretation is still in doubt. It becomes a problem when there are other considerations that call the ToE interpretation of the pattern into question.
When that "interpretation" continues to provide predicted results for each and every fossil find, it becomes more and more credible.
When there is no other "interpretation" providing anything close to the same results, it becomes even more credible.
And that is what a good powerful scientific theory does -- it provides the best known explanation for all the known facts, it is testable (each new fossil is a test) and it makes predictions (for new fossil finds) that also test the theory, and that validate the theory every time they are found to be correct.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 12:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-27-2015 2:39 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 266 of 2887 (769949)
09-27-2015 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by RAZD
09-26-2015 2:22 PM


Re: Just the Facts, Mam,
Would you not agree that "so apparently consistent" a pattern is strong evidence that it is more correct than just a random pile of fossils?
I've said I can see why it's seductive. But if there is no way to get from one creature to another genetically it's a bust.
The point was that you can't impose an interpretation on the facts and continue to call it facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2015 2:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2015 2:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 268 by Admin, posted 09-27-2015 7:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2015 8:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 270 by edge, posted 09-27-2015 9:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 267 of 2887 (769950)
09-27-2015 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
09-27-2015 2:39 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Mam,
quote:
I've said I can see why it's seductive. But if there is no way to get from one creature to another genetically it's a bust.
So, to be more accurate it IS strong evidence, but you speculate that the fossils might be unrelated despite the evidence to the contrary. I hope you can see that an unlikely speculation is not much of an objection.
quote:
The point was that you can't impose an interpretation on the facts and continue to call it facts.
The sequence is a fact. Even if you reject the dates the ordering is an observable fact, not an interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-27-2015 2:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 268 of 2887 (769953)
09-27-2015 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
09-27-2015 2:39 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Mam,
Faith writes:
But if there is no way to get from one creature to another genetically it's a bust.
If we need to find another mechanism that would produce what we see in the fossil record then the place to discuss this would be the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread.
If you have alternative interpretations of what we see in the fossil record, then this is the thread to present them.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-27-2015 2:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 269 of 2887 (769954)
09-27-2015 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
09-27-2015 2:39 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Mam,
Would you not agree that "so apparently consistent" a pattern is strong evidence that it is more correct than just a random pile of fossils?
I've said I can see why it's seductive. ...
Valid observations and solid conclusions driven by those observations and a strong theory that forms an overall explanatory framework are usually compelling.
Let's look at some synonyms for "seductive" -- attractive, captivating, charming, enticing, fascinating, ...
Now I do find fossils to be kind of sexy, but I find they way they consistently fit into the spatial/temporal matrix to be fascinating.
... But if there is no way to get from one creature to another genetically it's a bust.
Which is why evidence that bone shapes and the relative positioning of bones can change in relatively short time (as observed and documented in dog breeding), supports the evidence that this string of individual fossils, each intermediate in form between the next lower\older and the next higher\younger fossils, and showing that the same degree of changes seen in dog breeding, can also have occurred with those fossils due to the same simple observed, known evolutionary processes.
We also have absolutely no evidence that there is some obstacle to evolution from one to the other, and absolutely no evidence of some other method of sudden creation that would place random creatures at just the right time, just the right place and with just the right intermediate structure, and make a string of such faked intermediate structures, to purposefully create a false picture. There is no theory no hypothesis that predicts such fakery.
There is no known observed genetic blockage to evolution, there is no known alternative explanation that is anywhere close to being mildly compelling: these fossils support evolution and do not support any ad hoc creationist fantasy arguments. (ie - "We Have The Fossils. We Win.")
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-27-2015 2:39 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 270 of 2887 (769956)
09-27-2015 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
09-27-2015 2:39 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Mam,
I've said I can see why it's seductive.
So then, why is it seductive, in your opinion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-27-2015 2:39 AM 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