Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Pressie (4 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,370 Year: 20,406/19,786 Month: 803/2,023 Week: 311/392 Day: 1/41 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it ALL MOSTLY mammals above the dinosaurs?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 31 of 56 (865980)
11-03-2019 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
11-03-2019 12:51 AM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Assertion assertion assertion. ...

Well I was responding to a rather silly question and giving you a reason why it was silly.

... What it suggests is that y'all get so fixated on the supposed/made up sequence you think shows evolution you fail to take note of the fact that whatever living thing DID evolve and spread widely would continue in similar abundance in the following time periods, or at least enough of them would to reflect what we see today of the spread of those living things. ...

Curiously that is still irrelevant to whether the ToE explains all the evidence (and your comment shows it does) while the Floodist concept fails to explain simple evidence -- like the appearance of novel plant traits as you go from deepest/oldest layers of sediment to higher/newer layers.

Do various types of plant life "show up in layers ABOVE where they first appear" ? Yes, and no: "They do to different degrees." Once a new trait evolves it becomes part of the ongoing evolution of life. Some species go extinct, some evolve into new closely related species.

Again, in a listing of the appearance of novel traits as the fossil record is evaluated from bottom up, what survives afterwards is not of great interest compared to what is new and different.

We KNOW that the lower layers are the oldest -- even if you discard all the information regarding absolute age by radiometric dating methods, you are still stuck with the Law of Superposition

quote:
The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with geological stratigraphy. It is a form of relative dating. In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating, which assumes that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed.

We have discussed this before, a lot.

... Sure you can rationalize it away, that's what the whole ToE is anyway, just a bunch of "likely stories" that rationalize away all objections.

Even with a floodist model you have relative dating of the layers, and you have increasing levels of radioactive isotopes with higher layers, which is further confirming evidence of deeper layers being older than higher layers.

Curiously, denial does not refute the evidence. Repeated denial does not make it any more valid.

You have no problem imposing your own wild guess on what the Flood supposedly would have done ...

Based on knowledge of how sedimentary particles behave in water and knowledge of what flood waters have done in known floods. Evidence based theory is not wild guessing.

Pretending that something different and unknown anywhere would happen would be wild guesses based on fantasy without evidence.

So I'll take evidence based reasoning.

... but raising meaningfjul doubts about evolution, of course not. ...

No "meaningfjul doubts" have been raised in over 150 years of attempts as far as I know. Pretending a flood occurred that covered the earth is not a meaningful doubt, it is an unevidenced assertion based on fantasy: there is no evidence of such an event.

... Sure, the absence beneath is what you point to as evidence of evolution, ...

Even with a fantasy flood laying down layers one after the other you have fossils of whatever forms of life existed at the time each layer was deposited.

You also have radiometric evidence in the relative ages of the isotopes that are used in radiometric dating methods within these layers, relative ages that confirm the relationship of deeper to older and higher to younger depositions. This means that the fossils are in a geological/temporal matrix defined by those layers, even for a floodist model.

... but what I'm pointing to is something else that casts doubt on evolution: the fact that fewer to none of a living thing that dominated in the time period in which it is interpreted to have first appeared are found in subsequent time periods. This suggests that they were deposited in a particular layer and not in others or much less in others. This suggests that evolution is not the explanation for the supposed sequence, it's just the work of overactive imaginations.

Sadly, for you, this is just not true -- (a) because living things that appear for the first time in one layer often do appear in higher layers, they just aren't reported in a listing of when novel traits first appeared -- and (b) because some things/species go extinct, so their not appearing in later/higher layers is not at all problematic to the ToE.

Well, actually you don't, what you actually "see" is just a sequence of fossilized life which you then interpret as evolution of complexity. It's not even clear that there is a sequence of increasing complexity, that's just something you assume.

What we see is increasing complexity over time. This is demonstrated by the order of the fossils in the different layers that define relative ages.

The ToE explains this increasing complexity, the floodist model is a complete failure of even addressing any changes from layer to layer.

The human mind is an amazing organ, you conjure all sorts of relationships between the condition of the dirt a fossil is found in and "climate" in the "time period" you invent out of such flimsy bits of fact.

Says the person who invents hilarious wild concepts out of thin air that have NO basis in reality.

Developing theories to explain evidence is one of the more rational behaviors using the human mind. Pretending that fantasy actually happened is one of the least rational behaviors using the human mind.

That isn't listed because it is not remarkable, what is remarkable is when they first appear: why don't they appear in lower/older layers?

If it occurred in reasonable abundance it should be noteworthy. There is no reason why a species should spring up and spread in one time period only to disappear or gt sharply reduced in the next. What we should see in the next time period is many varieties of the species rather than fewer to none.

Noteworthy in a complete listing of all life on earth eon by eon, yes (and such listings are available). Noteworthy in a listing of when new traits appeared, no.

As I've said before, the continuation of various life-forms over time is not critical to either the ToE or fantasy floodist concepts, it doesn't distinguish one from the other, and it doesn't cause a problem for either to explain. The emergence of new traits as one goes from deeper layers to higher layers does however create problems for any floodist model to explain, but which is explained more than adequately by the ToE.

Yes, however, this is more evidence of the remarkable imagination of the human mind.
And of course all you have is the human imagination because there is no independent test of its rightness. Has a real test of the idea of increasing "complexity" even been done or does that remain a subjective impression that is imply reified and so aggressively asserted anyone who doubts it is a hater of science?

Yes. Many. See Evolution: The Rise of Complexity article in Scientific American blog.

quote:
Given how easily multicellular creatures can arise in test tubes, it might then come as no surprise that multicellularity has arisen at least a dozen times in the history of life, independently in bacteria, plants and of course, animals, beginning the evolutionary tree that we sit atop today. Our evolutionary history is littered with leaps of complexity. While such intricacies might seem impossible, study after study has shown that even the most complex structures can arise through the meandering path of evolution. ...

One mentioned in the article is the evolution of multi-cellular life forms from single cell life forms. In the lab.

See how subjective it all is? ...

Nope. I see how objective it all is: new traits occurring over time delineated objectively by relative age of layer superposition and radioactive isotope levels.

... "This appeared "after" that therefore it evolved from it, and your mind seizes on some characteristic of each to increase the plausibility of the relationship. You have no objective standard for the principle of increasing complexity. It's all an imaginative construct and nothing more.

Have DNA studies been done to test the subjective assertion that one type of plant evolved from another? How about grasses from angiosperms? Any DNA tests on that supposed relationship? And from a mere slab of rock you concoct a whole climate and then your agile mind "explains" why a particular plant could live in that "climate." You are believing nothing but clever relationships dreammed up by the clever human mind. And again, where are the objective tests, the DNA relationship tests for instance.

Curiously I only used evolved in the last item listed. What is listed is simply a time dependant ordering of more and more complex traits in the plant fossils.

Yes we have DNA evidence that confirms genetic relations, especially for the evolution of grasses from angiosperms, but that is not the issue of my arguments here.

My argument is simply that the the evidence shows an objective pattern of increasing complexity over time and that a floodist model is simply incapable of rationally explaining this evidence.

That is what you need to address.

The ToE can explain it, so this argument can distinguish the validity of one compared to the other.

Why are there layers at all in the OE/ToE scenario? That really makes no sense whatever.

WOW. WOW.

Science doesn't make stuff up and then look for corroborating evidence (that would creationism fantasy), it takes observed objective empirical evidence.

Observed objective empirical evidence shows that the earth is covered in layers, many many layers. This isn't part of theory this is FACT. Theories explain facts, hence the geological model of the natural history of the earth includes layers, lots of layers.

Again, you are making much of subjectively defined characteristics that your mind interprets as "consistent with evolution" ...

The Theory of Evolution can be stated thusly:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

The new traits listed are not subjective, they too are observed objective empirical evidence: FACTS.

They are consistent with the ToE explanation of the diversity of life based on known observed factual processes of evolution.

Your problem (that you try to hide from with this verbal garbage) is that you can not explain the time ordering of the appearance of these traits in the geological time scale imposed by the layering (relative ages of the layers) and by the radioactive isotope levels (that confirm the relative ages and leads to scientific approximations of actual age).

... and of course since evolution must work by trial and error it is actually mathematically impossible for the complex changes to have occurred even in millions of years to get from one kind to another. ...

Obstinately wrong and you know it. Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Change followed by selection followed by change followed by selection. Neglecting selection means the math is wrong/incomplete and meaningless (a straw man).

... As for those cases in the Fossil Record where all you have is not species to species change but simply variations within a species, the millions of years allotted are overkill to an absurd extreme. ...

So you agree there is more than enough time for evolution to cause variations that are selected and consolidated in later generations.

If I have more than enough time to walk from Maine to California, then there is no problem with postulating that I can walk from Maine to California.

New varieties of living things only need a hundred or a few hundred years. But you've got trilobites taking millions upon millions of years to produce mere genetically built in variations.

With so many variations that we label them as many different species in several different genera and different families. This is, after all completely consistent with the ToE.

Curious that there are no trilobite fossils after/above the Permian layers. Another FACT that the floodist fantasy model absolutely fails to explain.

quote:
Trilobite extinction

Exactly why the trilobites became extinct is not clear; with repeated extinction events (often followed by apparent recovery) throughout the trilobite fossil record, a combination of causes is likely. After the extinction event at the end of the Devonian period, what trilobite diversity remained was bottlenecked into the order Proetida. Decreasing diversity[29] of genera limited to shallow-water shelf habitats, coupled with a drastic lowering of sea level (regression) meant that the final decline of trilobites happened shortly before the end of the Permian mass extinction event.[21] With so many marine species involved in the Permian extinction, the end of nearly 300 million successful years for the trilobites would not have been unexpected at the time.[29]


The whole edifice is built out of nothing but mental cleverness, emphasizing this, ignoring that, making sequences out of subjectively chosen characteristics.

Mental cleverness developing rational theories consistent with all the evidence known, it is creationists that ignore details and evidence.

I've pointed out all kinds of problems with the ToE in different threads. ...

You have failed to provide a single problem that stands up to the evidence. Not one single problem that has not been answered in detail showing your erroneous thinking.

... This one focuses on a new problem: the lack or scarcity of specimens of a species after it first bursts on the scene as it were, just one of many lines of evidence that the ToE is bogus.

Except, curiously, that is not the argument I have made.

Instead this "new problem" that you fail to explain, is the time/layer dependent occurrence of new/novel plant traits in the fossil record -- not their continued existence (whether they prosper or go extinct is irrelevant), but their first appearance in the natural history record of plant fossils in the sedimentary layers.

That you claim the ToE does not explain something that has not been argued is what is bogus straw man fallacy.

Now, if you want to expand this discussion to include a complete map of all life on earth from start to finish, I hope you have several decades to cover it -- but that is a different argument entirely from the one I have addressed here: the layer by layer relative time line for the natural history of the development of new/novel plant traits as shown by the plant fossils in the different layers of sediment.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:51 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:14 PM RAZD has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 32 of 56 (865981)
11-03-2019 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
11-03-2019 2:43 PM


quote:
Like I said rationalization is the method of the ToE since you have no facts to show for any of this

By which you mean that you have to lie because your daft opinion is obviously wrong. Indeed, I pointed to the example of the synapsids which were the dominant form of land vertebrates before and after the dinosaurs.

quote:
However, since we're dealing in hypoththeticals and Reason, the reasonable answer to you is that in hundreds of millions of years some of them should have done more than merely survive to the subsequent time periods.

Hundreds of millions of years gives plenty of time for variations in population sizes, so the timescale hardly helps your argument. And of course caffeine has provided examples.

quote:
But it's all just subjective mental manipulation anyway so you can say whatever you want and call it true. That's a perfect definition of the ToE. But you call it Science in your fervid need for it to be true.

And there you go ***** again. Because it’s all you’ve got.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 2:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:03 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 33 of 56 (865982)
11-03-2019 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
11-03-2019 3:00 PM


OH I SEE I'M A LIAR BECAUSE I FORGOT ONE OF YOUR RATIONALIZATIONS? TYPICAL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO MISTAKE SUBJECTIVE CONJURINGS FOR SCIENCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 3:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 3:15 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 34 of 56 (865983)
11-03-2019 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
11-03-2019 3:00 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Curiously that is still ********** to whether the ToE explains all the evidence (and your comment shows it does)

Not if you've invented the concept of "complexity" it doesn't and that's mostly what I've pointed out in this thread so far. I suspect an honest assessment of that term would show there is no such pattern as increase in complexity. And that's because you are assessing the term purely subjectively rather than scientifically.

///while the Floodist concept fails to explain simple evidence -- like the appearance of novel plant traits as you go from deepest/oldest layers of sediment to higher/newer layers.

I suspect you could turn the order upside down or rearrange it any way at all and you could find "novel plant traits" appearing above those below. Spores for instance would be novel if they appeared above the vascular type of plant. That's how subjective this is.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 3:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 5:09 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 35 of 56 (865984)
11-03-2019 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
11-03-2019 3:03 PM


quote:
OH I SEE I'M A LIAR BECAUSE I FORGOT ONE OF YOUR RATIONALIZATIONS?

Calling facts rationalisations is just more *****. Not that we should need facts since the idea that population crashes and recoveries cannot happen is obviously silly.

quote:
TYPICAL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO MISTAKE SUBJECTIVE CONJURINGS FOR SCIENCE.

And yet more *****.

But what can we expect someone who makes things up and then calls them evidence ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:17 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 36 of 56 (865985)
11-03-2019 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
11-03-2019 3:15 PM


But what can we expect someone who makes things up and then calls them evidence ?

Exactly. Can't expect much of anything from defenders of the ToE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 3:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 3:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 37 of 56 (865987)
11-03-2019 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
11-03-2019 3:17 PM


quote:
Exactly. Can't expect much of anything from defenders of the ToE.

And there you go. Falsely accusing others of doing what you have done - and have done today, in this thread. I said it was SOP for you, and you’ve just proved it.

This is the sort of thing that gets you called deplorable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 38 of 56 (865989)
11-03-2019 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
11-03-2019 12:41 PM


Listing first appearances has nothing to do with how long they last
Oh jazzy Razzy, you are such a clever apologist for the ToE. But that's not science, dear. Science doesn't leave out facts just because they don't enhance the Theory. You know that of course, but the ToE is always an exception because of course you KNOW it's true so leaving out what you deem to be irrelev(vvv)ant stuff is completely acceptable.

Faith, once again: listing when a certain trait first appears has absolutely nothing to do with how long the various species that carry the trait exist/persist on earth. That is a different question, a different issue and involves a different set of evidence.

I believe this is the fourth or fifth time I have explained this distinction to you.

Certainly you can't possibly think that describing the continued existence of species/descendants/etc after their first appearance in the natural history geological record can pose any kind of a problem for Evolution.

You could just as well accuse me of leaving out evidence of gravity ... and you still would be failing completely to even begin to address the issue I AM talking about -- why do the layers of sediment show a progression in the development of plant life from the lowest/oldest to the highest/newest.

Message 28: Actually what is interesting for me is how all the plant life is sorted into specific layers as if they have evolved over time.

Plants don't run around or swim to higher ground.

The trees and grasses we see since the K-T layer are not the plant life that coal is made from, and don't appear in lower layers.

Then I posted a Timeline of Plant Evolution showing when various plant traits first appeared in the geological natural history record of life on earth.

That timeline does not cover how long various species/etc lasted, because that is not relevant to when they first occurred.

Why are there no grasses below the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event layers?

Why are there no angiosperms below the Cretaceous layers?

Why are there no conifers below the Permian layers?

Why are there no vascular plants below the Silurian layers?

Why are there no plants with roots or leaves below the Devonian layers?

How could a flood possibly do this sorting?

Response to these questions? {chirp} {chirp} {chirp} {chirp}

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 39 of 56 (865990)
11-03-2019 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
11-03-2019 1:43 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Microevolved, Razzy, that only takes a generation at best, not millions of years. It's still the same species, different varieties.

Microevolution is evolution. No other kind of evolution exists. Macroevolution is just microevolution over several generations, producing sufficient difference that we label them different species.

That you deny how science labels species has nothing to do with reality, just how you deny reality.

It's just a distraction on this thread though, because it's still true that all the subsequent time periods should demonstrate the same species that supposedly appeared in one previous time period, varieties of course, however, ...

Still irrelevant to the timing of new/novel plant traits that don't exist in lower/older layers.

Still ignoring that you have not provided any explanation for the sorting of plant fossils by the occurrence of new/novel traits by some fantasy flood event that is notable in having a total absence of evidence for it occurring.

Meanwhile you are very busy trying to distract this thread from any answer to the question of the timing of developments that is shown by the plant fossils in the different layers.

... the subsequent time periods should demonstrate the same species that supposedly appeared in one previous time period, varieties of course, however, if the very same varieties appear we know it's a sca(ammm)m, and they do so it is. ...

Nope.

This only happens in your mind, because the continuation of species was not discussed in the data I presented.

Thus absence is not relevant, absence is not evidence of a scam, absence is just an artifact of not having been discussed.

... Because if it's the same varieties we know the next sedimentary layer is not a time period but just a layer of sediment that got laid down at the same time as the previous "time period." ...

Nope.

Conifers existing from the Jurassic layers until today does not mean that they are the same time period as the Cenozoic layers because the layers below/before the Cenozoic do not contain fossils of grasses.

Just like spores existing from the Ordovician layers until today does not mean that they are the same time period as the Jurassic layers because the layers below/before the Jurassic layers do not contain fossils of conifers.

This is precisely why the FIRST appearance of specific traits is important to this discussion while the continued survival of some traits until today is irrelevant to the discussion: the continued existence of a trait does not mean that the timing of the layers is right or wrong.

... Evidence, my dear Watson, evidence.

Indeed, so you better start dealing with the evidence that very few of the plant traits known in the world today are represented by fossils in the oldest/lowerest layers of sediment, that as you rise up from the bottom/lowest/oldest layer, layer by layer, that more and more traits known in the world today are represented by fossils in the newer/higher layers of sediment.

Start dealing with the evidence of relative age of each layer with oldest at the bottom and newest at the top.

Even if -- by some strange and bizarre miracle -- the layers were laid down by a flood, this relative age of the layers would be correct.

And you would still have trouble explaining the sorting of the fossils in the different layers showing the appearance of new/novel traits in higher levels, traits that do not appear in the lower layers.

You should get started. I've document quite a few of these new/novel traits arising in higher/newer layers.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 1:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 40 of 56 (865991)
11-03-2019 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
11-03-2019 3:14 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Not if you've invented the concept of "complexity" ...

Which I haven't.

quote:
The evolution of biological complexity is one important outcome of the process of evolution.[1] Evolution has produced some remarkably complex organisms - although the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all proposed as possible metrics.[2][3][4]

Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive (orthogenesis) and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant.


... and that's mostly what I've pointed out in this thread so far. ...

Which post was that?

... I suspect an honest assessment of that term would show there is no such pattern as increase in complexity. And that's because you are assessing the term purely subjectively rather than scientifically.

See above: "Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant."

An honest assessment would agree that a conifer with vascular sap vessels, roots and leaves, is more complex than cyanobacteria and that the complexity of the conifers did not exist in the Cambrian layers. Factually listing the different traits developed over time is not subjective, nor is comparing the new/novel traits for complexity vs previous plant life shows that new/novel traits add to complexity that did not exist before.

Adding a new trait that did not exist before would rather obviously add to the overall complexity of life, imho.

I suspect you could turn the order upside down or rearrange it any way at all and you could find "novel plant traits" appearing above those below. Spores for instance would be novel if they appeared above the vascular type of plant. That's how subjective this is.

Nope.

The layers that have vascular type of plants also have plants with spores, so appearance of spores above vascular type plants would not indicate a new/novel trait at that point.

This is why the layer by layer documenting of new/novel traits is objective empirical evidence -- fact.

This is you not paying attention to what is said and going off on tangents only you have made up.

The first appearance of a trait in layer X does not mean it doesn't exist in layer Y which is above/later than layer X. It is not a list of the only appearance of the trait.

This is the fifth or sixth time I have explained this to you.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 5:27 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 41 of 56 (865993)
11-03-2019 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
11-03-2019 5:09 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Yes, Razzy, they gave up on progression to higher forms of life although isuch a progression is patently clear since that's the basis on which the taxonomic tree was also built. And for all its strong assertion that complexity has taken the place of that supposedly erroneous system absolutely not one word is said of evidence that complexity is involved at all. You are subjectively assessing superficial characteristics as more or less complex, but such subjectivity is not science.

Are grasses more complex than angiosperms? I don't know about DNA in this case but subjectively speaking it wouldn't seem so since the latter may have flowers. So since your system is subjectively based I wonder how you rationalize this one.

Isn't it true that there are some insects or worms that have more genes than human beings?

Oh I've noticed how you and PK are asserting that just because something appears in a layer doesn't mean it doesn't also appear in the layer above and I've answered that it's not science to leave it out pf the discussion of what appears where, AND that it most likely appears in smaller numbers which would fit sorting by some mechanical process but makes no sense on the ToE/OE system.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 5:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 11:47 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2019 12:16 AM Faith has responded
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2019 7:20 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2019 8:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 42 of 56 (866006)
11-03-2019 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
11-03-2019 5:27 PM


Everything Some things that are wrong with the ToE
  1. First the absolute silliness of thinking sedimentary strata represent time periods.
  2. Second the absolute silliness of denying that sedimentary strata represent time periods
  3. Third the absolute silliness of thinking that dead things found within the sedimentary strata represent creatures that lived in the particular time period represented by the particular sedimentary layers.
  4. The subjectivity of the order of the fossil record and lack of objective tests, for "complexity" and so on.
  5. The fact that it's impossible for trial and error ever to produce a new species even in billions of years
  6. The fact that you only need a few hundred years at most to get new varieties of any species. Trilobites are a conspicuous example in the fossil record of varieties represented over hundreds of millions of years. Sheer silliness, and not a hint of evolution to another species either.
  7. The fact that evolution must ultimately lead to a point where further evolution is impossible, or even to extinction, by the inevitable depletion of genetic diversity.
  8. The habit of responding to critics of the ToE with ad hominems.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 5:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2019 12:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 43 of 56 (866007)
11-04-2019 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
11-03-2019 5:27 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
quote:
Oh I've noticed how you and PK are asserting that just because something appears in a layer doesn't mean it doesn't also appear in the layer above and I've answered that it's not science to leave it out pf the discussion of what appears where...

Which is a silly rationalisation of your inability to grasp the concept of “first appearance”. RAZD didn’t give a list of “what appears where”.

quote:
... AND that it most likely appears in smaller numbers which would fit sorting by some mechanical process but makes no sense on the ToE/OE system.

There’s no implication of lower numbers, it doesn’t particularly fit a mechanical sort and a mechanical sort isn’t a viable explanation anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 5:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 11-04-2019 12:31 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 44 of 56 (866008)
11-04-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
11-04-2019 12:16 AM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Assertion assertion assertion denial denial denial and you didn't even check to see what I was responding to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2019 12:16 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2019 7:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 45 of 56 (866009)
11-04-2019 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
11-03-2019 11:47 PM


Re: Everything Some things that are wrong with the ToE
quote:
First the absolute silliness of thinking sedimentary strata represent time periods.

You said something silly and you can’t make any sense of it. That’s not a problem with evolution.

quote:
Second the absolute silliness of denying that sedimentary strata represent time periods

So thinking it and denying it are both absolutely silly ? That looks like a problem with your list.

quote:
Third the absolute silliness of thinking that dead things found within the sedimentary strata represent creatures that lived in the particular time period represented by the particular sedimentary layers.

Since it obviously isn’t silly, this must be just another of your problems.

quote:
The subjectivity of the order of the fossil record and lack of objective tests, for "complexity" and so on.

The order of the fossil record is objective fact, and other creationists don’t seem to have much of a problem with complexity.

quote:
The fact that it's impossible for trial and error ever to produce a new species even in billions of years

An assumption isn’t a fact.

quote:
The fact that you only need a few hundred years at most to get new varieties of any species. Trilobites are a conspicuous example in the fossil record of varieties represented over hundreds of millions of years. Sheer silliness, and not a hint of evolution to another species either.

The idea that trilobites are the product of strong selective breeding is hardly an obvious fact. Where is the evidence of the breeders? In fact trilobites include a multitude of species and the dates are determined by geology. Claiming that it only took a few hundred years or even a few thousand is just silly.

quote:
either.
The fact that evolution must ultimately lead to a point where further evolution is impossible, or even to extinction, by the inevitable depletion of genetic diversity.

A “fact” which has been disproved.

quote:
The habit of responding to critics of the ToE with ad hominems.

Says the person who relies most on lies and abuse.

I guess that the real list is more like this:

  1. Evolution is true
  2. Faith doesn’t like it
  3. Evolutionists refuse to worship lies
  4. Evolutionists refuse to submit even when Faith lies about them
  5. evolutionists dare to tell the truth about Faith, instead of giving her the respect she deserves as an **** ***** *********

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 11:47 PM Faith 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 © 2019