Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9010 total)
55 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 881,552 Year: 13,300/23,288 Month: 230/795 Week: 26/33 Day: 8/5 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(5)
Message 871 of 1163 (794345)
11-14-2016 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 863 by mindspawn
11-14-2016 4:43 PM


Re: Loony theory/Obvious theory
Hello mindspawn, I hope you are well.

I've not been very active at EvC recently, but I have been following the past couple of days worth of this thread and I can't help but weigh in.

You say I make up silly things, yet my logic is undeniable.

It's not so much your logic that's letting you down but the "facts" around which you're building it. Almost all of the "facts" upon which you have founded your argument are simply not true. They are misapprehensions based upon your bad habit of weaving narratives around fragments of poorly parsed papers.

Case in point; you've got the order wrong here;

we have marine, then amphibian, then terrestrial

No we don't. We have marine and terrestrial life well before anything even resembling an amphibian arises. PaulK has tried to tell you this. You don't seem to be taking it on board.

The earliest terrestrial plants appear in the Ordovician. That's tens of millions of years before the carboniferous. Their record runs right through the Silurian and Devonian periods.

The first land animals appear in the Devonian, but they are not amphibians. They're arthropods; millipedes, scorpions and so on. Amphibian-like tetrapods only appear later, towards the end of the Devonian and do not become common until the Carboniferous.

Lissamphibians (the group that contains actual amphibians) do not even appear until the Permian.

So your timeline is completely out.

This isn't the only error upon which you've based your arguments. Heck, it's not even the only error in this one short post (Pre-Carboniferous landscapes, for instance, were not "wetlands", but rather had mountains and other features), but it is important.

You can have the most impeccable logic in the world, but if you hang your theories upon fake "facts" your conclusions will be false every single time. Garbage in, garbage out (or check my signature).

I would encourage you to do a more (and more thorough) fact-checking. I would also encourage you to listen a bit more when people tell you that you are wrong in some detail or other. Many of the people on this board have a great deal of knowledge and expertise. Some are professionals in relevant fields. You should listen to them. Even if you are not persuaded of the reality of evolution, you should at least be able to strengthen your own ideas by banishing a few of your misapprehensions and founding your beliefs upon a bedrock of real facts instead of silly things.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2016 4:43 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2016 5:49 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(6)
Message 916 of 1163 (794397)
11-15-2016 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 873 by mindspawn
11-14-2016 5:49 PM


Re: Loony theory/Obvious theory
I was referring to just one aspect of the alleged theory of evolution, that from fish to amphibuous fish, to amphibians, to land animals.

And you still have it wrong. Amphibians only appear in the geological record well after the emergence of the early land tetrapods. You don't seem to know what an amphibian actually is.

You claimed that the amount of land increased during the Carboniferous, from a previous, swamp-like state. But somehow all the newts, frogs, salamanders, toads and others (including a great many extinct species as well) failed to capitalise upon this idyllic swamp environment for hundreds of millions of years.

My point is that transition is obviously a reflection of a marine environment changing to a terrestrial one.

The first terrestrial tetrapods did not emerge from a marine environment. That's another error.

Evolution is as evident in that particular order of fossils as it is when a pond is drying up and then only the frogs are left to enjoy the puddles.

Except that at the point where you suggest the drying took place there are no frogs. Not for millions of years.

Later it dries up completely and a squirrel runs over the mud. Did the fish evolve into a squirrel. No, the squirrel came from a dry region and ran over the dried up surface.

Really? In the Carboniferous?

I am constantly surprised by how little creationists know about biology. I mean, this is a group of people who supposedly believe that life was created for their benefit by an omni-benevolent god and yet you show so little interest in his creations.

Another case in point; you seem to have the idea that mammals are ill-suited to life in wetlands. These animals would like to disagree with you.

The notion that mammals would have even the slightest trouble surviving in wetlands is so false as to be laughably absurd. And you're forgetting about another major tetrapod lineage; birds. Are you seriously going to tell us that birds were geographically isolated because they are unable to thrive in wetlands? Really? Because that would be insane.

So, to recap;

    You don't know what am amphibian is and have placed them in the wrong geological period.

    You seem to think that tetrapods emerged onto land directly from the sea.

    You characterise the Palaeozoic as "wetlands" when in actual fact it had deserts, mountains and a range of geographic features.

    You suggest that mammals are ill-suited to wetland life when in fact they thrive in every swamp and estuary on earth.

    You talk of "squirrels" existing hundreds of millions of years before they actually appear.

    You speak of geographic radiation, not seeming to realise that there are thousands of lineages that would have thrived in the bountiful wetlands, yet these creatures (birds for instance) do not appear in either the Palaeozoic or the Triassic.

Those are all wrong. Those are a bunch of silly notions you got hold of by desperately trying to make facts that you don't fully grasp fit your theory. If you carry on like this, founding your ideas upon misapprehensions like these ones, you will continue to spout silly gibberish for ever. All of these notions have been busted on this forum, but you don't seem to notice. I suggest that you take the time to engage with some of these issues instead of claiming to have presented facts when all you've really given us is fantasy.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2016 5:49 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 917 by Pressie, posted 11-15-2016 5:36 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(4)
Message 924 of 1163 (794424)
11-15-2016 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 917 by Pressie
11-15-2016 5:36 AM


Re: Loony theory/Obvious theory
Hi Pressie,

Please do also include a photo of a hipo.

It would be my distinct pleasure. Taken from the splendid Animals Riding Animals.

Personally, I'm rather partial to these beauties;

I love the pose as well. It's like they're saying "Hey mindspawn! Check out our vestigial toenails! Aren't they cool?".

Presumably the hippo's, turtles and manatees, ill-adapted as they are to aquatic life, must have sheltered with the humans and other pre-Flood mammals in mindspawn's "boreal cradle". It must have been awfully crowded, what with them having share space with all those dinosaurs, but hey ho. No-one said that Flood geology was easy.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by Pressie, posted 11-15-2016 5:36 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 925 by kjsimons, posted 11-15-2016 2:12 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 926 by jar, posted 11-15-2016 2:48 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 929 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2016 6:26 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(4)
Message 951 of 1163 (794891)
11-30-2016 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 945 by mindspawn
11-30-2016 12:17 PM


Re: Mindspawn's Personal Fossil Failure
Hi mindspawn,

Let's take a look at your latest howlers;

trilobites feed on bacteria

Where on Earth did you get that notion from?

quote:
Trilobites occupied a huge set of habitats and paleolatitudes, from tropical shallows and reefs, to polar depths, and wide-ranging pelagic habitats in between. Their diversity of form suggests a complex ecology with many modes of life, including occupation of a variety of trophic (feeding) guilds. There has been a long history of speculation about the feeding habits of trilobites, ranging from predators, scavengers, filter-feeders, free-swimming planktivores, and even parasites or hosts of chemoautrophic symbionts. Using modern-day crustaceans as an analog, it is reasonable to suggest that the majority of trilobites may have been predator-scavengers, as the majority of marine crustaceans are today. Nonetheless, among today's crustaceans are filter-feeders (such as barnacles), planktivores (the majority of larval crustaceans fall into that category), herbivores (many small shrimp species), and parasites (a few copepods, isopods, and other taxa).

Fortey and Owens (1999) conducted a review of trilobite feeding habits in which several patterns were highlighted


Trilobite Feeding Habits

Fortey, R.A., & R.M.Owens. 1999. Feeding habits in Trilobites

lobsters feed mainly on fish droppings

Seriously, where do you even get this stuff from? It's just bizarre.

quote:
It was once thought that lobsters were scavengers, and ate primarily dead things. However, lobsters are really more opportunists, catching mainly fresh food which includes fish, crabs, clams, mussels, sea urchins. Lobsters are also cannibalistic and sometimes will eat other lobsters.

Life of the American Lobster - Diet & Digestion, Lobster Institute, University of Maine

Given that you are almost always wrong about the individual details, do you really think that you stand a chance of being right about the big picture? Remember; Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Pre-boundary reptiles are not that different to Triassic and Jurassic kinds. The various kinds of archosaurs and even others like the placerias have a strong resemblance to what we know as dinosaurs.

No, they bear a superficial resemblance. To you they may look alike, but that's because you, with the best will in the world, know absolutely nothing about archosaurs, reptiles or any other related group. I'm not trying to belittle you or upset you, but given some of the things you've said on this thread, it's plain that you know nothing about this topic. In Message 779 for instance, you describe dicynodonts as archosaurs (there were in fact therapsids) and dimetrodons as "pre-flood reptiles" (they were synapsids). Forgive me mindspawn, but when you get these details wrong, I have difficulty trusting your ability to make meaningful comparisons between these species.

Archosaurs, lissamphibians, therapsids and dinosaurs look alike to you because you are not looking at them with a naturalist's eye. You are looking at them with the untrained eye of a layman. Now there's nothing wrong with that; you've never claimed to be anything other than an interested layman. But you are still left ill-equipped to make any kind of judgement on these issues. You lack the training to know what points of difference to look at. If you want to talk about these organisms you need to look at them more closely. You need to look at them in exacting detail, as a professional would look at them. And when you do that, the superficial similarities fall away.

I would like to join Dr A in suggesting that you attempt an answer to post Message 790, which deals with these anatomical details. If you do, you will see that early tetrapods are not the free-for-all that you seem to imagine.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by mindspawn, posted 11-30-2016 12:17 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 952 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2016 6:31 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 963 of 1163 (794910)
12-01-2016 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 958 by mindspawn
12-01-2016 3:53 AM


Re: Feeding habits of arthropods
I admit I didn't research the feeding habits of trilobites and other arthropods well.

Perhaps the lesson you should learn from this is that you do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding of biology to get away with making stuff up.

But what is obvious , is that an organism will proliferate when conditions are suitable.

You understand that this is one of the central predictions of the ToE, right?

When we find a crayfish suddenly appearing in the fossil record, do we assume that they evolved and the intermediate fossils were too rare to be found.

No, because that's not what we find. Fossil decapods pre-date the emergence of modern crayfish.

Or do we assume they were in a rare location, and the original fossils were too rare to be found?

This is a blatant excuse. This is one of the most glaring errors in your style of argument; you have no evidence to present, so you make excuses for why you can't provide it. You have no pre-flood humans, so you make an excuse, hiding them away in locations that you (wrongly) imagine to be inaccessible. You have no pre-flood whales, so you conjure up dome "inland sea" where they might hide. You have no Cambrian lobsters, so you grope for excuses about sulphur and CO2. All of this to avoid the fact that you have no positive evidence for your position.

Ad hoc excuses are a poor substitute for evidence.

Please explain why the theory of evolution would have any advantage over the concept of rare locations.

Because the ToE matches the evidence of the fossil record (as well as in numerous other lines of evidence). The ToE makes clear predictions and these have been vindicated by all subsequent evidence. Your theory is a shameless exercise in excuse-making, backed up by zero evidence. Remember, implausible excuses for why you don't have any fossils to back up your position are not equivalent to hard, positive evidence.

I say creationism has an advantage, because we do observe organisms in rare locations that would be difficult to discover thousands of years from now.

Pointing to a cave system with a handful of unusual species is by no means comparable to your suggestion that most of the life forms on Earth spent hundreds of millions of years co-existing in a conveniently hidden lost world.

If you could point to a single such location or a single suitably anachronistic fossil, you would have some evidence. Instead you have nothing but half-baked speculation and excuse-making.

Yet evolution has far too many missing intermediate fossils to be the preferred theory.

Really?

To me, that looks like quite a few. More than zero at any rate.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by mindspawn, posted 12-01-2016 3:53 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(4)
Message 976 of 1163 (794943)
12-02-2016 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 974 by mindspawn
12-02-2016 4:55 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
Those on this site can mock as you will. Deride. Insult.

C'mon mindspawn, roll back the persecution act. No-one is deriding or insulting you. True, I have said that you lack understanding of biology and palaeontology, but that's not an insult. 99.99% of people lack understanding of this subject, simply because it's a vast and complicated subject that's extremely difficult to get a handle on. There's no shame in not knowing these things. I don't pretend to be an expert myself; my palaeontological knowledge is decidedly lacking. But you know what? I'm not the one telling the scientific community that they're all wrong and that I know better!

Yet the facts are there for all to see.

And if any of the "facts" in your posts were actually real facts, you might have a point. In reality, 90% of the "facts" you rely upon are bogus. And yes, everyone but you can see it.

It would take a unique non-conformist mind-set that searches for truth rather than respect from peers to acknowledge the truth of what I say.

And that's how you see yourself is it? The lone voice in the wilderness, surrounded by biased fools who scoff at your genius?

Hubristic rubbish.

I'm not going to lather you up by offering false flattery; that really would be an insult. I tell it as I see it because it would be patronising to do otherwise. And what I see is someone who is out of his depth and who is wrong about nearly every single claim he makes. Worse, you are insistently wrong, making the same false claims, over and over, ignoring contradictory evidence as if it had never been raised. That is not the path to truth.

I applaud you for walking back your error about arthropod diets. That was cool of you. But it's worth nothing if you immediately replace it with another falsehood that you just made up.

You need to grow a thicker skin, take responsibility for your own arguments and, above all, fact check. Unless you start to do these things, you'll continue to spout bizarre nonsense forever.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by mindspawn, posted 12-02-2016 4:55 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 993 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 7:46 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 1117 of 1163 (795792)
12-15-2016 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 993 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 7:46 AM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
Hi mindspawn,

I enjoy your writing style

Aw shucks!

You say no-one is insulting, well I have been called a "liar" for accurately referring to a LUCA as the evolutionist's common ancestor.

You may recall that Dr A did challenge that post. You are not being ganged up against arbitrarily. As a matter of fact, all of the most severe dressings down that I've had on this board have come from other evolutionists.

I have been called a liar for other unnecessary reasons. The language is unnecessarily emotive, revealing a vested emotional position beyond a mere quest for scientific truth.

I think that stems from the way you argue; it comes across as intrinsically dishonest. For starters, your ideas are so... shall we say, idiosyncratic, that many observers find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly hold so patently absurd an opinion. Further, you are prone to sweeping dismissive statements like "evolutionists have presented no evidence". This comes across as dishonest; you know perfectly well that we have, you just disagree with it. That's your prerogative, but since you have declined to engage with any of the evidence you have been given, your dismissive attitude is unwarranted.

If it's scientific truth you want, you need to engage more with the evidence and do so in much more detail. If you were to do that, I think that the insults would dry up quickly. In the mean time, you're kind of exasperating to debate with.

You applaud my backing down on a fact which is insignificant to my general position (diets of arthropods). Thank you.

No problem. But that still leaves countless errors unacknowledged. Dimetrodon is still not a reptile. Highlands were not rare in the Paleozoic. Mammals are not ill-suited to swamps. Those are all mistakes mindspawn. I looked them up.

I am waiting for evolutionists to admit they are on shaky ground with their lack of intermediates.

You're going to have a long wait. Best to bring snacks.

The existence of some aquatic mammal as a so-called whale intermediate or additional evidence of clades is insufficient to prove a theory like evolution.

Quite right, it wouldn't be enough.

As it goes, the evidence is considerably more compelling than that. Multiple whale intermediates have been found. They share morphological features that go beyond the superficial. They appear in exactly the right period. In short, they repeatedly and independently match the predictions of the ToE. If that isn't evidence in favour of evolution, I can only wonder what would be.

By the way, you keep using that word "clades". I do not think it means what you think it means. Evidence of clades is evidence of evolution. Clades are groupings based upon the notion of evolutionary inter-relatedness.

quote:
A clade (from Ancient Greek: κλάδος, klados, "branch") is a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life".

The common ancestor may be an individual, a population, a species (extinct or extant), and so on right up to a kingdom. Clades are nested, one in another, as each branch in turn splits into smaller branches. These splits reflect evolutionary history as populations diverged and evolved independently. Clades are termed monophyletic (Greek: "one clan").


Since a clade consists of an organism and all of its evolutionary descendants, it is quite absurd to talk of "changes beyond a clade" and to claim that clades are a prediction of creationism is just too funny.

Darwin was mature enough to admit a weakness, no-one here has admitted there is such a weakness in evolutionary theory.

Darwin admitted a weakness in the fossil evidence, not the theory itself. And he did this over 150 years ago. Newsflash! Fossil evidence has improved quite a lot over the intervening century and a half. You waste your time attacking the fossil record as it was understood by our great-great-great-grandfathers. Modern palaeontology has moved on. Leave it to creationists to be stuck in the Nineteenth century.

Darwin predicted that whale ancestors would be found and we now have fossils of creatures intermediate between a modern whale and a land-dwelling mammal. Any way you slice it, that is evidence in favour of evolution.

All you guys will feel better about it when you do admit that the lack of intermediates especially from LUCA to the Cambrian Explosion is still a damning mystery to the theory of evolution. Anyone mature enough to admit such a fault in evolutionary theory? I await.

I look forward to feeling better. Tell you what, I'll join you in that little fantasy right after you produce a Cambrian rabbit. Or a Carboniferous squirrel. Or a Devonian eagle. Or a single tangible shred of positive evidence for your position. Because right now, we have an embarrassment of fossils that validate the predictions of the ToE and you have not a single goddamn thing.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 993 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 7:46 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1121 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2016 9:51 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(4)
Message 1118 of 1163 (795794)
12-15-2016 8:32 PM


Phyla
mindspawn writes:

most phyla appear fully formed in the Cambrian

Indeed. Let's take a look a a Cambrian example of a chordate, the phylum that includes humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia

Now I'm no palaeontologist, but I'm going to go ahead and say that it's not a dead ringer for a human being. Your mileage may vary.

Is mindspawn going to concede that this little critter shares a clade with humans? Or is he going to stop crowing about how all the phyla were present in the Cambrian?

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Replies to this message:
 Message 1119 by jar, posted 12-15-2016 9:13 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1120 by edge, posted 12-15-2016 11:08 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 1122 of 1163 (795806)
12-16-2016 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1120 by edge
12-15-2016 11:08 PM


Re: Phyla
Hi edge,

Are you saying that my question about all orders and classes being represented in the Cambrian record has been a waste of time?

Oh God, let's not pull at that thread. If we start wondering whether anything we write here is a waste of time we're screwed.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1120 by edge, posted 12-15-2016 11:08 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020