|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The evidence shows fully formed organisms suddenly appearing. ... No, the evidence shows all organisms are essentially fully formed, as would be expected from the theory and the evidence that supports the theory. Because of the sketchiness necessary in the fossil record, due to the random formation of fossils, all individuals "appear suddenly" -- we don't see their growth or development. Your phrasing is absurd unless you expect critters that are half one form and half another -- an old creationist pratt that bears no resemblance to evolutionary science or theory.
... but the transitionary fossils are all hidden away in niches or never even fossilised. For EVERY organism through EVERY geological period these transitions are missing. ... False. We have many examples of intermediates (a more appropriate term) and in fact every fossil is intermediate between ancestors and descendants. The homologies show the patterns of heredity.
The only actual evidence is of clades, which is exactly what creationists expect, an adaptive variety formed from an original organism. Except that there is no evidence of clades that don't have predecessors in larger clades, evidence that contradicts separation of kinds into distinct clades unrelated to others. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
quote: This is a fair question. It would take a number of small changes over time with absolute consistency in all features until a completely different organism is in view. If for example various apes over time show slight changes in cranium capacity, upright stance, reduced tree dwelling features, arm/leg ratios, pelvis ratio, reduced feet/toe use etc etc in a logical sequence this would be convincing. If any one feature shows a huge backward jump, then it has to be eliminated from the evolutionary sequence as merely a completely separate species. For example if one claimed ape/human intermediate fossil has all the features that appear to indicate a transition from an earlier ape, yet its proportionate pelvis size is significantly larger than its ancestor, it has to be eliminated from the transitionary sequence to humans. It is an irrelevant species unrelated to the others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
quote: Yes one would definitely expect critters that are a transition, showing features in transition from one form to the next. Definitely. This is not absurd, it is EXACTLY what one would expect from evolutionary theory. This concept that all change is hidden is merely an excuse from evolutionists for the lack of discovered transitions. Where is the primitive trilobite that shows some signs of being in transition from some earlier LUCA? One cannot just have a theory and justify the lack of evidence, one needs evidence for it to be acceptable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
mindspawn writes: It would take a number of small changes over time with absolute consistency in all features until a completely different organism is in view. If for example various apes over time show slight changes in cranium capacity, upright stance, reduced tree dwelling features, arm/leg ratios, pelvis ratio, reduced feet/toe use etc etc in a logical sequence this would be convincing. That's exactly what we have for the hominid sequence.
If any one feature shows a huge backward jump, then it has to be eliminated from the evolutionary sequence as merely a completely separate species. Why couldn't evolution produce reversions to previous adaptations? What is stopping it from doing so?
For example if one claimed ape/human intermediate fossil has all the features that appear to indicate a transition from an earlier ape, yet its proportionate pelvis size is significantly larger than its ancestor, it has to be eliminated from the transitionary sequence to humans. Why can't size increase, then decrease, and then increase again within a transitional series? What would evolution not be allowed to shrink a feature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
quote: Due to the organisms appearing fully formed.
quote: If there are no preceding intermediates of similar physiology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
mindspawn writes: Yes one would definitely expect critters that are a transition, showing features in transition from one form to the next. What features would those be?
This concept that all change is hidden is merely an excuse from evolutionists for the lack of discovered transitions. Tiktaalik roseae, a quite famous tetrapod intermediate fossil, was not found until quite recently. Where do you think it was for the last 150 years before it was found?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This concept that all change is hidden is merely an excuse from evolutionists for the lack of discovered transitions. This concept that all change is hidden is merely a lie that you have made up in your head because you are unable to rebut what we actually say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
mindspawn writes: Due to the organisms appearing fully formed. That doesn't mean anything until you show us how you determine if a fossil is fully formed.
If there are no preceding intermediates of similar physiology. How do you determine that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I see multiple species in that picture of yours. Can you explain your interpretation of the picture and why you interpret it like you do? It is a picture of many intermediate forms, and I interpret it as a picture of many intermediate forms because it is a picture of many intermediate forms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yet I still await any evidence for evolution ... That would be the fossil record, genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography, behavioral ecology, etc. Do you have any evidence for organisms being poofed into existence by a psychopathic invisible wizard who lives in the sky?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
quote: Sure it can shrink too. The point is that any large jumps in the opposite direction of the required transition eliminate that organism from the so-called sequence. It then becomes illogical guess work rather than evidence. The logic points to a separate species if there is a feature that involves a significant backward jump in the expected direction of evolution. In the end most claimed sequences have too many irrelevant species included in the sequence and therefore make the sequence untenable. I find your picture of skulls unconvincing unless you identify the species A to N.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The point is that any large jumps in the opposite direction of the required transition eliminate that organism from the so-called sequence. Why? Why can't evolution produce a lineage where size moves up and down over time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For example if one claimed ape/human intermediate fossil has all the features that appear to indicate a transition from an earlier ape, yet its proportionate pelvis size is significantly larger than its ancestor, it has to be eliminated from the transitionary sequence to humans. It is an irrelevant species unrelated to the others. Just like if my father is significantly taller than me and my grandfather, he must be eliminated from the transitional sequence to me; he is an irrelevant person unrelated to the others. Creationist logic, it's so delicious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
quote: I am thinking of closing down this discussion in this thread, not because of your complete disrespect for my religion and for God, but because I keep repeating myself regarding evidence for creationism. My point on this thread has been made. Evidence favors creationism because most Phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian explosion without any evidence of intermediates. The reasons you have for not finding intermediates excuses your view, but does not favor your view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
quote: I wouldn't take it to that ridiculous extent. So this is a strawman argument. Obviously physiology is relevant, your (unintentional?) implication is that physiology is irrelevant when discussing transitionary sequences.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024