Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1051 of 1163 (795617)
12-14-2016 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1049 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:31 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
I think you are not facing the facts that often the changes to the physiology are HUGE with no evidence of ANY intermediates in these massive jumps in so-called evolution.
We already showed you that there are intermediates. You refuse to even address them.
You have decent logic to keep your head deeply buried in the sand in the face of contrary evidence.
You don't have contrary evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simple logic tells us this.
This is why I asked about Tiktaalik roseae earlier. That tetrapod intermediate was found only recently. Where was it for the last 150 or 200 years?
Regarding predictability, creationism predicts that modern organisms will increasingly be found in early layers, and early organisms will sometimes still be around in niche environments (like the coelecanth).
Then show us a mammal in the Cambrian. Show us a shark in the Cambrian.
In every geological period there is a large range of organisms as creationism predicts, so of course you will find some expected ones in each layer and think you are proving evolution.
What range of organisms does creationism predict, and why? Why shouldn't we find rabbits in terrestrial Cambrian deposits if creationism is true? Why shouldn't we find grasses in Devonian strata if evolution is true? Why shouldn't we find flowers in those same Devonian strata if creationism? Why shouldn't we find wooly mammoths in Jurassic sediments if creationism is true?
Where are these predictions that creationism supposedly makes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:31 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:11 PM Taq has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1052 of 1163 (795618)
12-14-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:38 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
Not at all. They can be related. But if you are relying on physiology as your evidence of evolution, and that physiology is inconsistent it ruins your evidence. They could be related or they could be unique species. There is in some cases a recently adapted clade which can be convincing, other than that most evolutionary sequences are unconvincing because of these sudden jumps in physiology in one feature which ruins the sequence and seems to indicate a unique species.
Well, the differences between a kangaroo and a wombat apparently don't "indicate a unique species", but their similarities do indicate common descent. So let's agree that any "jump" that size or smaller doesn't "indicate a unique species".
Unless you would like a criterion based on your prejudices rather than actual morphology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:38 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1091 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 9:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 1053 of 1163 (795620)
12-14-2016 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1028 by Taq
12-14-2016 3:36 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
quote:
How do you determine that?
One determines similar physiology between two fossils by looking at the physiology of both fossils. If one cannot find any earlier fossil of similar physiology then that fossil can be regarded as "fully formed". Fully formed fossils are evidence that favors creationism. Unfortunately many many organisms just appear fully formed with no evidence of any predecessor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by Taq, posted 12-14-2016 3:36 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by Taq, posted 12-14-2016 4:48 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 1054 of 1163 (795621)
12-14-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:38 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
Not at all. They can be related. But if you are relying on physiology as your evidence of evolution, and that physiology is inconsistent it ruins your evidence.
HOW IS IT INCONSISTENT??????
There is in some cases a recently adapted clade which can be convincing, other than that most evolutionary sequences are unconvincing because of these sudden jumps in physiology in one feature which ruins the sequence and seems to indicate a unique species.
What sudden jumps?
Here is a graph of cranium size for hominids, showing a nice steady increase through time:
All of the evidence you asked for, and you still deny it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:38 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1088 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 8:16 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1055 of 1163 (795623)
12-14-2016 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:44 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
mindspawn writes:
One determines similar physiology between two fossils by looking at the physiology of both fossils. If one cannot find any earlier fossil of similar physiology then that fossil can be regarded as "fully formed".
Don't these hominid fossils have similar physiology to modern humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:44 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1056 of 1163 (795627)
12-14-2016 5:03 PM


TOPIC
I'd just like to second Taq's questions.
What range of organisms does creationism predict, and why? Why shouldn't we find rabbits in terrestrial Cambrian deposits if creationism is true? Why shouldn't we find grasses in Devonian strata if evolution is true? Why shouldn't we find flowers in those same Devonian strata if creationism? Why shouldn't we find wooly mammoths in Jurassic sediments if creationism is true?
Where are these predictions that creationism supposedly makes?
We have enough threads where we can brag, and have bragged, about the triumphs of evolution. This thread is about the Great Creationist Fossil Failure. If you feel that you've run out of excuses, say so instead of trying to change the subject.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 1057 of 1163 (795628)
12-14-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Taq
12-14-2016 4:42 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
quote:
What range of organisms does creationism predict, and why? Why shouldn't we find rabbits in terrestrial Cambrian deposits if creationism is true? Why shouldn't we find grasses in Devonian strata if evolution is true? Why shouldn't we find flowers in those same Devonian strata if creationism? Why shouldn't we find wooly mammoths in Jurassic sediments if creationism is true?
Where are these predictions that creationism supposedly makes?
Creationism predicts that all kinds were created at one moment in the past. Therefore all current organisms will be found through all layers in approximately the same form as modern organisms. After the flood , ark animals were too small in number to reflect significant fossilisation.
In the pre-Cambrian, alive organisms are less likely to be buried, it is the organisms of short life spans that would have been buried in precambrian strata. Much (not all) of the early landscape was marine anoxic and sulfuric with limited species therein.
The angiosperm non-aquatic low oxygen landscape of today was restricted to Siberian highlands in pre-flood times (before the transgression /regression of the PT boundary). This is the only early landscape that would explain the sudden later appearance of fully formed grasses and mammals (rabbits).
Late Permian to early Triassic layers are largely flood related. First marine reptiles then large flightless birds dominated the post-flood landscape (Triassic/Jurassic) until mammals spread out from the ark. There was an impact event that cause the eventual extinction of the dinosaurs and large flightless birds , and the subsequent dominance of ark mammals on most landscapes. Thus mammals were not numerous enough and were possibly confined to Turkey during the period that these previously marine reptiles dominated the continents during the Triassic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Taq, posted 12-14-2016 4:42 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1062 by edge, posted 12-14-2016 8:08 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 1071 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2016 9:13 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 1072 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2016 10:44 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 1106 by Taq, posted 12-15-2016 10:46 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1058 of 1163 (795629)
12-14-2016 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1049 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 4:31 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
quote:
I think you are not facing the facts that often the changes to the physiology are HUGE with no evidence of ANY intermediates in these massive jumps in so-called evolution.
Even if that is true in some cases - and it would have to be shown - it hardly helps your case when the gaps don't fit with your ideas.
quote:
The jump from LUCA or bacteria or eukaryote to trilobite is just too large to justify the theory.
Even there it would be false to say that there is NO evidence of intermediates. Such as the trace fossils of earlier Arthropoda alluded to previously in this thread.
quote:
You may pretend I ask too much by requiring intermediates, reality is that I'm merely asking for the most basic of evidence which is lacking.
But I don't. I say that you are being dishonest in denying the existence of the well-known intermediates that we do have and guilty of an extreme double standard when you really do have absolutely no evidence for Precambrian mammals. Even a few teeth or single bones or tracks would dramatically improve your case. if your evidence was better than the evidence for trilobite ancestors you might have a case -but in fact it is worse.
quote:
I'm not requiring an intermediate between every two intermediates
If your criterion does not reflect what you are actually asking for - and I never said that it did - then the fault is still yours. Pointing out the flaws in your criterion as stated by you is not constructing a strawman.
quote:
I require some justification for HUGE changes to physiology without any evidence of any evolving.
And nobody is disagreeing with that. However you also reject evolutionary relationships which don't require huge changes in physiology and where there is evidence of evolving.
quote:
Regarding predictability, creationism predicts that modern organisms will increasingly be found in early layers, and early organisms will sometimes still be around in niche environments (like the coelecanth). As research continues it is in fact creationism which grows stronger and stronger.
It is hard to see how creationism makes a stronger prediction of relict populations then evolution. And it would be surprising indeed if we did not find that some groups are older than expected. Even when the expectation is based on genetic data. But I will point out that none of these cones close to validating your ideas. Moving gorillas back from 8,000,000 years ago to 10,000,000 years is nowhere close to moving them back more than 500,000,000 years.
quote:
Regarding cousins, all you prove is that there are more and more species being discovered.
Obviously not. The whole point is that the cousin species is anatomically intermediate, and existing at the right time. It just isn't on the line of direct ancestry.
To say that it is just another species is to arbitrarily discount the evidence.
quote:
The assumption that cousins have a common ancestor is mere assumption
The fact that you do not understand the reasoning - and let me remind you that you have demonstrated very poor reasoning abilities - does not mean that there is no reasoning.
The fact that these species fit into the pattern predicted by evolution is evidence of common ancestry. Because evolution provides an explanation of thst pattern. If your ideas were true we should indeed just find random new species - which would not fit the pattern
quote:
Time ranges of the existence of each species are growing wider and wider. Gorillas found earlier than expected. Humans found earlier than expected. Civilisation has been found earlier than expected in Turkey. Concentrations of early mammal forms are found in Turkey as the flood story predicts.
As I have pointed out the earlier ratings do nothing to help your ideas, moving things much too little. The Bible doesn't even mention a civilisation in Turkey immediately following the Flood - the first city is Babel in Shinar (Sumeria). Not that the Turkish remains are anywhere close to being old enough when you put the Flood at the start of the Triassic - and I will bet that there will be problems with your "concentrations of early mammals" too
quote:
Slowly the squeeze on the evolution fantasy is increasing.
If the "squeeze" has to consist of denying evidence, misrepresentation and error and irrationally jumping to fallacious conclusions it is unlikely that you are fighting a fantasy.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 4:31 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 5:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 1059 of 1163 (795630)
12-14-2016 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1056 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2016 5:03 PM


Re: TOPIC
quote:
We have enough threads where we can brag, and have bragged, about the triumphs of evolution. This thread is about the Great Creationist Fossil Failure. If you feel that you've run out of excuses, say so instead of trying to change the subject.
That is very unfair of you to say. I am replying to a lot of questions and if I do not get to all of them rapidly this is no excuse or subject change. In fact I do not find any question this thread challenging at all. Due to the evidence favoring creationism and a later flood as reflected in the geology of the PT boundary which shows this strong transgression and regression at the PT boundary.
And it is evolutionists who have the excuses, it is creationists that have the evidence of the sudden appearance of multiple organisms fully formed as expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2016 5:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1060 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2016 5:26 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 1063 by edge, posted 12-14-2016 8:10 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 1060 of 1163 (795632)
12-14-2016 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 5:16 PM


Re: TOPIC
Due to the evidence favoring creationism and a later flood as reflected in the geology of the PT boundary which shows this strong transgression and regression at the PT boundary.
And does not show a global flood.
Here's the Hallam and Vail curves, this is what science actually shows.
And what about the fossils? Your excuse was that all the fossils that you need to exist were hiding under the Siberian traps where no fossils can be found, and then it was pointed out that we're knee-deep in Paleozoic fossils from that exact area.
And it is evolutionists who have the excuses ...
Again, you're lying to us about what we say. We don't need excuses. We say: WE HAVE THE FOSSILS, WE WIN.
... it is creationists that have the evidence of the sudden appearance of multiple organisms fully formed as expected.
As I pointed out in post #944, even if that wasn't a lie, it would be inconsistent with the creationist fairytale. It would, in fact, be one of the things you'd have to explain away. What's your excuse?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:16 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1061 of 1163 (795634)
12-14-2016 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 988 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 6:38 AM


Re: Mindspawn's Personal Fossil Failure
What is increasingly observed is that the spread of individual species throughout the geological column is wider than expected.
But not complete.
The coelecanth, angiosperms, etc etc. Most phyla existed fully formed during the Cambrian Explosion and still exist today.
What about all orders and classes?
According to a strict biblical interpretation, cattle were created during the creation week and yet not a single mammal fossil exists prior to the late Mezozoic Era.
This observance of early fossils surprisingly found alive today, ...
Are you saying that you have a pet trilobite?
Please give us a list of Cambrian creatures that are alive today.
... and also of modern organisms surprisingly found fully formed in the Cambrian will continue until the current geological column is seen for what it is.
Okay, where is the Cambrian giraffe?
Where are you getting your information?
The current geological column is a mere reflection of common widespread conditions.
What do you mean?
More and more niche environments will be uncovered over time. I am stating the obvious, obviously we will discover more niche environments the more we dig.
And?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 988 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 6:38 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1062 of 1163 (795636)
12-14-2016 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 5:11 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
Creationism predicts that all kinds were created at one moment in the past.
This is not supported by the fossil record. We do not see mammals or dinosaur fossils scattered across the entire record.
Therefore all current organisms will be found through all layers in approximately the same form as modern organisms.
Then you are demonstrably wrong. There are no human fossils or artifacts until the very end of the geological record.
Late Permian to early Triassic layers are largely flood related. First marine reptiles then large flightless birds dominated the post-flood landscape (Triassic/Jurassic) until mammals spread out from the ark.
Wrong. The Permian to Jurassic periods were becoming more and more terrestrial. There was no P/Tr transgression-regression as shown in this data:
The Absaroka Transgression in North America was in full retreat since the early Permian and, until the Cretaceous, most sedimentary deposits were terrestrial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:11 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1075 by mindspawn, posted 12-15-2016 5:10 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1063 of 1163 (795637)
12-14-2016 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 5:16 PM


Re: TOPIC
Due to the evidence favoring creationism and a later flood as reflected in the geology of the PT boundary which shows this strong transgression and regression at the PT boundary.
This is wrong. There is no "strong transgression" at the P/Tr boundary. See my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:16 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1064 of 1163 (795638)
12-14-2016 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1002 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 1:09 PM


Re: Evolution has theory, no evidence
Nah. They don't show gradual changes. Even according to evolutionary time frames gibbons and monkeys co-existed 20 million years ago as they do today. Just because they have not found a great ape in those layers does not prove evolution, it just means the great apes were not as mobile or fast breeding as they spread out from the ark. ie they were only found in later layers.
If you are just going to spout nonsense, don't bother.
Your beliefs and imaginings are not supported by the evidence.
First, gibbons and virtually all monkeys are not in the human ancestral line, and second, they indeed did change in the past 20,000 years.
And the ark, and any imagined events concerning it, are tribal myths, not suitable for use as scientific evidence.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1002 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 1:09 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 1065 of 1163 (795639)
12-14-2016 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 1:41 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
We know what the evidence is.
I would suggest that creationists do not know what the evidence is because their beliefs prohibit them from seeing or accepting most of it.
Fossils exist.
Duh!
We can interpret that evidence.
Not all interpretations are of equal value. Scientific theories must accommodate all the relevant facts and be contradicted by no relevant facts. Creationist "theories" must accommodate scripture and belief, and if there is a conflict with facts or evidence then those must be considered wrong and ignored.
Regarding "interpretation," the scientific approach is valid, while the creationist approach is invalid. The creationist's who suggest that all interpretations are of equal validity are lying to you.
The interpretation does not suggest evolution.
Creationists' interpretations do not suggest evolution, as they are hobbled by the requirement to conform to scripture and belief which are against evolution. Scientific interpretations, on the other hand, follow the data and evidence, and do suggest--indeed "prove"--evolution.
Again, not all interpretations are of equal value.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 1:41 PM mindspawn 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