Summations Only

First, you need to define "statistically significant amounts of functional information" ... and I suggest that you do that on the Can mutation and selection increase information? thread.Second, that is NOT how macroevolution is defined by evolution scientists (I said you would get it wrong), and your definition is not even usable until you've defined "statistically significant amounts of functional information." Scientists don't use unmeasurable parameters.Third, there is Pelycodus:

quote:

---

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

​

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

---

I think you will agree that there is "statistically significant" change over time, and that there are fully functional critters from bottom to top -- they keep reproducing new critters. And I think you will agree that there is a "statistically significant" alteration at the top where the population divides into two separate breeding populations.By the Evolution Science definition of "macroevolution" (ie a correct one) this shows "macroevolution" occurring, both Anagenesis and Cladogenesis are seen, plus we see the formation of a clade."Information" ... what do I need that for? What does it add to the observed facts showing "macroevolution" occurring by "microevolution" over time spanning many generations?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : 'Edited by RAZD, : st

lol, no. Well that's just prejudiced, jerk. You dumbass, I'm not even an atheist. Get it right, first, then maybe it'll make some sense.Pre-judging me as an atheist engaging scientism and avoiding/dodging my point to make an insult is a wasted opportunity on your part.You should be ashamed of yourself.

Actually reality is what scientists use to test theories. The reality of genome sequence comparisons validates the theory of evolution, as does every fossil found that continues to fit the spacial-temporal matrix of all the other fossils, leaving a story line in the rocks. Actually evolution is useful in dealing with diseases like flu that evolve every year, being able to predict likely changes to adapt the vaccines sooner for the next flu season.Or diseases like ebola and cholera and so many others.If you don't think this is a practical use, feel free to use last years vaccines. The universe is stranger than you can imagine.Enjoyps - I always though Chico was one of the Marx Brothers ... Edited by RAZD, : st

Interesting. Have you got pictures showing what they looked like?
P. ralstoni
N. nunienes
N. venticoli

Sadly no. There is a complete fossil skeleton of one on the website

quote:

---

A complete Pelycodus fossil

​

​

This is a picture of Notharctus venticolus, which is the species in the upper right of the Pelycodus diagram. As the diagram proved, all of the other species (ralstoni, trigonodus, jarrovii, and nunienus) were smaller than this.

​

(In fact, the pictured fossil is a descendant of Notharctus venticolus, but none of the differences are visible here.)

---

So the basic distinction from bottom to top is size ... as far as can be seen from the fossils. In modern monkeys we see close relatives have virtually identical skeletons while having distinctively different fur patterns (see tamarins), and I expect this occurred with Pelycodus as well.Notice that Notharctus nunienus at the top left is about the same size distribution as Pelycodus ralstoni so it is probably re-occupying the ecological niche of Pelycodus ralstoni in the trees, able to forage smaller branches than the larger Notharctus venticolus while Notharctus venticolus may be taking more advantage of their size to dominate on the ground. That could have lead to the sexual isolation that occurred between the two populations.Enjoy

Pelycodus is such a joke, a perfect example of how the theory dictates the interpretation when there's a better one easily at hand.Those are fossils of the animal for sure, but their depth of course says absolutely nothing about their age. As usual they all died in the Flood and were buried wherever they were buried. Some were young, some old, just as you'd find in a catastrophic mass burial, accounting for the differences in body size, and if there are some features that suggest microevolution that would make them cousins, not a later macroevolved generation.The ToE is not proved by such facts, it's just an interpretive paradigm laid on the data and the Flood is so much better at explaining it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Each layer has size variations, different layers have different distributions of size.
Magically sorted to fake evolution. You forgot that part. There is no such thing as a "later macroevolved generation" as each generation evolves from the last by microevolution.Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolved traits over many generations, and you have been told this before.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

And you have been told before many times that the Flood is a much better explanation for this sort of example. SO much better, so much more sensible.

SnortOnly when you ignore reality, Faith, as usual.Look at that diagram again, and tell me how the Magic Flying Flood sorted those fossils so that each layer had an assortment of sizes overlapping the sizes below them, but shifted towards larger sizes. Why are ALL of the Pelycodus jarrovii fossils larger than ALL of the Pelycodus ralstoni and why are ALL of the Pelycodus trigonodus fossils intermediate, none larger than Pelycodus jarrovii and none smaller than Pelycodus ralstoniHow on earth would a flood do that except by magic, and magic done in order to deceive people.'Splain it LucyEnjoy

Are you pawing the ground too?Here comes another red cape:Water sorts stuff, RAZD. It does. I'm sure it wouldn't matter how it sorted them you'd still find evolution in the picture. (Comes to mind of course what dwise said on the Hidden Figures thread about us being pattern-seeking creatures. That's really all the ToE is, the seeing of patterns in the data where there really aren't any -- not the ones you're seeing anyway.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet on The Great Creationist Fossil Failure thread, when we came up with numerous examples of fossil distribution that geologists can easily explain but flood creationists cannot, your response was: and So guesswork, supposition and goddidit versus actual observations that match the geochronological data. Is that how you define much better and sensible?See you there if you want to support your views...

Pelycodus doesn't show any evo pattern. I don't think any of the fossils do, I think it's all evo invention but I don't usually try to argue it. Pelycodus I do because it's such a Flood case.

Yes - I noticed you ran away on that other thread, mainly because the only answer creationists have is 'magic sorting'.

I suspect the order is an illusion but I can't prove it so why try? I've proved the Flood hundreds of times on other issues anyway.

Your "proofs" have all been disproved.You just can't accept the evidence provided by the real world.Perhaps you should stick to the Faith and Belief threads, as you are committed to ignoring scientific evidence when it disproves your religious beliefs?????