|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
But an un-labelled sequence of skulls , I can do nothing with. To those who know the field, those skulls are instantly recognizable! But since you don't know, here is an annotated photograph:
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You are obviously referring to Siberian marine areas, but it is indisputable fact that large areas of terrestrial Siberia were covered be flood basalts at the end-Permian. And, just to be clear about this, the areas that were entirely covered by molten lava happened to be the areas where all the mammals were? Then why are there mammals?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Haha I'm not trained. In some cases I cannot tell the difference. That is why I would need the full information. But the purpose is not to test my skills, , but to test any legitimacy in a claimed sequence of fossils. I posted it, I know for what purpose. It's to see how you separate them into apes and humans.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The idea that a bacteria-type common ancestor with 1000 genes can evolve into something with 2000 genes or more is fantasy. A theory with no evidence. But we can point to many observable instances where the number of genes has increased, e.g. polyploidy, which has been reproduced under lab conditions. http://www.biology-pages.info/P/Polyploidy.html What we have never seen is an invisible wizard poofing organisms into existence by magic. That would be fantasy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I notice that you did not provide your definition of the Theory of Evolution, and until we can agree on the terminology we will be talking past each other. I will continue to use mine until we can discuss yours.
Sure one can see some "Evolving" occurring. ... As I said in Evolution Process and Theory (I edited the subtitle) virtually all species show the process of evolution happening in every generation.
... But whether you clearly admit it or not, the theory of evolution explains the existence of MOST modern life forms via a GENE ADDING process. ... and some by gene loss processes, and some by gene altering processes, ... ie -- the "changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation" ... ALL the processes of evolution are involved, not just net gain.
... Most organisms have more unique active coding genes than the original so-called LUCA and so there are nearly always claimed NET GAINS in the number of these genes over time. ... They can also have some that are lost or altered. What we can be sure of (have high confidence in) is that differences in DNA accumulate over time, and thus there are always NET DIFFERENCES in the genes over time. What makes "unique active coding genes" different from other genes? Do you mean the genes that are expressed in the phenotyes? If what you mean is that every species, every variety, every individual, has some unique gene sequences, then you are talking about something that is mundanely true, because mutations happen.
... This process is essential to explain most life-forms according to evolutionary claims. ... I again refer you to my definition:
quote: That is how evolution science explains all life forms, past and present. Not only "net gain" (which is a creationist PRATT).
... So I agree with most other processes of evolution, and these sequences of adaptation can be seen in the fossil record but net gains of unique active coding genes is unobserved. Thus you are left with an empty fantasy of a theory, with no evidence how most modern organisms can possibly exist. ... Well it is difficult to see DNA in fully permineralized or cast type fossils, but we do see the differences in phenotype over generations. For instance Pelycodus:
quote: Notice the high degree of overlap between generations, so most of the populations are similar in distribution of phenotype traits, but there are some gains and some losses. Note that anagenesis(1) is clearly visible from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus jarrovii but there are no longer any shared traits on the graph. Notice that we also see a clear division of the breeding population into two independent daughter populations, or cladogenesis(2), in this fossil record. Thus we see that these two processes clearly explain this fossil record, that there is nothing "empty" or "fantasy" about these processes explaining this fossil record.
... but net gains of unique active coding genes is unobserved. ... We can clearly see the phenotype expression of the genotypes and the results of active gene differences between the populations generation to generation and between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus at the top. Can you explain why these observed differences need to be "net gains" in order to explain this evidence? EnjoyNotes (1) -- The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis. (2) -- The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Before I tackle those skulls in your post, are they in a claimed sequence? I'm only interested in so-called evidence of how some common ancestor ape evolved into human apes. It should not be necessary to know any claimed sequence. The skulls shown represent branch tips of an evolutionary tree, not nodes; so there would not be any kind of linear relationship between them. Or in other words, one did not evolve into another. The issue is, if humans and apes are separately created species, then you should be able to clearly separate the groups based on morphological identity alone and those groupings should not relate to geological time. Here the image CS posted:
However, I note these are all Hominins, so perhaps you might say they are all human. idk. Maybe Coyote's image would be a better example?
Or in other words, why don't we find specimens like Ardipithecus ramidus in the same geological layers as Homo erectus. Why are they separated by geological time? If these skulls represent separately created "kinds" then they should be easy to group into human and ape, with no specimens that are in the grey, fuzzy area between the two "kinds" and these groupings should not be correlated to geological time.
I would need EVERY claimed detail about those skulls if available. Arm length, skull capacity, scientific name, location, context. I definitely will not be able to answer you on skulls alone. Somehow I doubt you are a forensic anthropologist... But, you certainly could make two groups and call one group apes and the other human based on some arbitrary cutoff for each character. However, I think you would find that it would not be too easy to create clean cutoff points for all characters that would provide consistent groupings. We refer to this phenomenon as incomplete lineage sorting. While several characters may produce one grouping, another set of characters may produce a different grouping. The reason for this is there are intermediates between the groups. So, you don't need some proposed sequence, you need to describe what characters separate humans from apes and then, using those characters, describe which species fit in which group and demonstrate there are no intermediate forms. I'd bet it couldn't be done even for a few characters present in the skulls. There are clearly intermediate forms. How about just answer this: Is Australopithecus africanus human kind or ape kind? What about Ardipithecus ramidus, human kind or ape kind? And why? HBDWhoever 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
The theory of evolution is fine as an explanation for how kinds have adapted minor DNA changes since creation week. I believe allele frequencies have a large role to play, but also some of the processes that you mention have been a reality.
But the theory of evolution is incorrect as an explanation of where those original organisms came from. Nearly every organism in existence today has more than the few hundred genes of the surmised LUCA. Thus for evolutionists, a gene adding process is essential. Last universal common ancestor - WikipediaThe composition of the LUCA is not directly accessible as a fossil, but can be studied by comparing the genomes of its descendents, organisms living today. By this means, a 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in the LUCA. Wade, Nicholas (25 July 2016). "Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things". New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2016. I repeat: Nearly every organism in existence today has more than the few hundred genes of the surmised LUCA. Thus for evolutionists, a gene adding process is essential. Yet we do not not observe any additional unique active coding genes that add fitness to any organism, therefore evolution is a weak theory to explain the origins of modern organisms. Creationism better fits the evidence. .
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence of the existence found below the P/T boundary of mammals and humans and reptiles and birds and flowering plants and all of the other kinds that are mentioned as existing before the flood or your concession that you are simply spewing shit.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The theory of evolution is fine as an explanation... Glad you agree. (Quote mining technique learned from creationists.)
But the theory of evolution is incorrect as an explanation of where those original organisms came from. The theory of evolution deals with change. It does not attempt to define the origin of the initial organism(s). There are several competing hypotheses for original origins, none of which has risen to the level of a theory. (And no, creation is not one of them.)
...therefore evolution is a weak theory to explain the origins of modern organisms. Creationism better fits the evidence. The theory of evolution does not attempt to define the origin of the initial organism(s). And no, creationism does not fit the evidence. You are forced to argue here that the flood was at the P-T boundary, some 250 million years ago because you can't find a better flood that is more recent. You are forced to argue that modern humans were cavorting around before most dinosaurs evolved, some 250 million years ago. You are also forced to deny virtually all forms of scientific dating. You have no evidence for any of these claims. So, it seems a little odd that you are trying to convince us that creationism fits the evidence when you are forced to ignore the vast majority of scientific evidence. You should just admit you are doing religious apologetics and quit pretending to do science.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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Thus for evolutionists, a gene adding process is essential. Yet we do not not observe any additional unique active coding genes that add fitness to any organism, therefore evolution is a weak theory to explain the origins of modern organisms. Creationism better fits the evidence. Thus for creationists, an invisible sky-wizard who poofs animals into existence by magic is essential. Yet we do not observe any invisible sky-wizard who poofs animals into existence by magic, therefore creationism is a weak theory to explain the origins of modern organisms. Evolution better fits the evidence. Also I've told you about gene-adding processes on this and other threads, but you ignored me. Perhaps we should return to one of those threads for further discussion about fossils, as this thread is devoted to creationist errors concerning the fossil record, not genetics. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
mindspawn also ignored the fact that humans have fewer genes than Chimps...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
mindspawn writes: That's fine for you, mindspawn. Yet, you're talking nonsense. The theory of evolution is fine as an explanation for how kinds have adapted minor DNA changes since creation week You're a bit loony, mindspawn, but not all people are as loony as you are. Life is changing. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Mindspawn,
I'm just catching up in the thread and came across this comment that no one responded to:
mindspawn writes: The first marsupials are found in fossil graveyards in Egypt,... According to the Wikipedia article on Marsupials, this isn't true. Where does your information come from? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I'm glad that you admit that there's no actual theory of origins. Only hypotheses.
Science should consider creationism, after all organisms did suddenly appear. The only reason not to, would be a propensity not to believe in God. But the facts do point to creationism, and such an hypothesis like abiogenesis is difficult to support due to the fact that many of those twenty amino acids require opposing environments to be created. But I digress. Yes we are both in consensus then, we both believe organisms evolve, and you do not admit that for most organisms evolution requires a net gene ADDING process. The only alternative is that the original LUCA had a genome with more unique active coding genes than the average modern organism, which is basically creationism. How would such a complex organism just appear, and then evolve from there without any gene adding process? That sudden unexplained appearance is creation. Do you really believe that, or alternatively do you believe that most organisms have more genes than the original LUCA?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I'm glad that you admit that there's no actual theory of origins. Only hypotheses. That's common knowledge--among scientists. A theory in science is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. That theory must accommodate all the relevant facts and be contradicted by none of them. Creationists use the term "theory" in an entirely different way, generally meaning something like "wild-ass guess."
Science should consider creationism, after all organisms did suddenly appear. The only reason not to, would be a propensity not to believe in God. You do realize, I hope, that science deals in evidence?
But the facts do point to creationism, and such an hypothesis like abiogenesis is difficult to support due to the fact that many of those twenty amino acids require opposing environments to be created. You would rather believe in supernatural "poofs" for origins? And you claim that scientific explanations are "difficult to support?"
But I digress. Yes we are both in consensus then, we both believe organisms evolve, and you do not admit that for most organisms evolution requires a net gene ADDING process. The only alternative is that the original LUCA had a genome with more unique active coding genes than the average modern organism, which is basically creationism. How would such a complex organism just appear, and then evolve from there without any gene adding process? That sudden unexplained appearance is creation. Do you really believe that, or alternatively do you believe that most organisms have more genes than the original LUCA? I'll leave these paragraphs to those who are up on modern genetics. Bones and fossils are more my thing. And dating--you have been ducking the dating issue completely.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024