A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[Jose Fly]

Because I am not making any controversial claims.

1 Scientists know that evolution is a flexible theory (if conditions would have been different mammals could have evolved at some other age , or never)

2 If the conditions would have been different feathers could have evolved at some other point

3 in most of the cases A clam would have been buried before a bird in flood scenario

4 radiometric is not an exact science

Really I am making trivial and uncontroversial claims

?????? You challenged SZ to show you "a source that describes how the dating was done" and said you would "tell [him] what the flaws are". So if he provides you with a paper published in a scientific journal, you're saying you'll be able to spot flaws in it.

And that begs the obvious question....why would you post these "flaws" here, rather than send them in to the journal?

 

[leroy]

If you rearrange the entire thing and have it still form a tree, then obviously it won't break the tree pattern.
And once again we are back to the useless tautology: "if everything were different then everything would be different".

The fact of the matter is that mammals do not have such genes. Instead, they have genes for hair.

So if tomorrow you find such a mammal, while all other mammals (and non-mammals) studied till today remain the same, then the tree pattern breaks.

Sheesh dude.
How many times do you need it spelled out for you?

You are so far gone you have even lost track on the core issue. That core issue was: what if tomorrow we find a mammal with feathers?

As explained above, and several other multiple times, then it would be in conflict with all other data and it would be a violation of the nested hierarchical structure of anatomy and dna.

Because finding a mammals with feathers tomorrow, wouldn't change anything about all the mammals we already know and have studied to date.




But they don't.
The point. You keep missing it. Or perhaps better said: you keep ignoring it.



But mammals don't have such genes.
And finding a mammal with feathers tomorrow, won't magically make such genes appear in all genomes sequenced to date, where such genes aren't present.

SO, finding a mammal with feathers tomorrow, would break the phylogenetic tree.



It would not fit a nested hierachy.

Also note that you are now resorting to arguing about hypothetical parallel universes to get your silly point accross.

You have now entered the level of "well if pigs could fly, then pigs could fly".

Well big whoop.

Call me when you actually find a mammal with feathers.
You won't though. I'm certain of this. Mammals have hair.

In fact, it could be even argued that if you find a creature with feathers, that already disqualifies it as a mammal. Because one of the charecteristics of mammals, is that they have hair.

And that is the result of evolution. This is how we know that we won't be finding a feline with feathers. Because feathers sit an on entirely different branch of the tree of life, and evolution (common ancestry of species) is pretty much a fact. This is how we KNOW that we won't be finding any felines with feathers. Finding a feline with feathers would be the equivalent of finding a massive object that is unaffected by gravity.

IF you would encounter such, you'ld pretty much instantly think that there must be some anti-gravity technology going on.

Similarly, a feline with feathers, my first idea would be "result of artificial genetic manipulation", because natural origins of such a trait would be pretty much ruled out.

If it could be shown to have a natural origin, evolution as currently understood would be successfully disproven.




Ow, and I can make "supernatural" predictions also.
I predict that none of this will sink into that brain of yours and that within 2 posts, you'll be back making the same dumb claims again, as if none of the points made in this post (and all previous posts - and not just by yours truly) were never made. Instead, you'll just double down on your strawmen and intellectual dishonesty.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Ok so (and this is an honest question, not meant to be tricky)

1 modern Birds don’t have teeth

2 then birds with teeth were found in the fossil record

3 this didn’t cause any problem for evolution (the ancestors of birds had teeth no big deal)

What would be different if we ever find a mammal with feathers in the fossil record ?.... why couldnt we simply say “the ancestors of mammals had feathers, no big deal)

 

[leroy]

?????? You challenged SZ to show you "a source that describes how the dating was done" and said you would "tell [him] what the flaws are". So if he provides you with a paper published in a scientific journal, you're saying you'll be able to spot flaws in it.

And that begs the obvious question....why would you post these "flaws" here, rather than send them in to the journal?

Because the flaws are not secret.

Radiometric dating makes many assumptions and requires speculation, scientists know this which is why they know that any age will always be tentative.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because the flaws are not secret.

Radiometric dating makes many assumptions and requires speculation, scientists know this which is why they know that any age will always be tentative.

So you're saying "Show me a geochemistry paper and I'll point out the flaws in it, but those flaws are widely known among geochemists".

What exactly is your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do whatever you want, if you don’t want to support your claims it’s your problem

LOL! I did support my claims. No one believes you when you post such nonsense. You ran away from a more than reasonable offer considering how little you know about the sciences. Watch the video. Tell me what you think of it and then I will give you the evidence you are asking for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the flaws are not secret.

Radiometric dating makes many assumptions and requires speculation, scientists know this which is why they know that any age will always be tentative.

There you go putting the burden of proof upon yourself again.

What unreasonable assumptions are made? There is nothing wrong with rational assumptions, those are also called "deductions". But you are trying to claim that a dating process that has gone through peer review again and again is not reliable. That puts a ginormous burden of proof upon you. Or are you just orating out of your posterior sphincter again?

 

[leroy]

So you're saying "Show me a geochemistry paper and I'll point out the flaws in it, but those flaws are widely known among geochemists".

What exactly is your point?

The point is that while the age of the fossils given by dating methods favor evolution over the flood model, its not a knock down argument. There is room for reasonable doubt.

 

[leroy]

LOL! I did support my claims. No one believes you when you post such nonsense. You ran away from a more than reasonable offer considering how little you know about the sciences. Watch the video. Tell me what you think of it and then I will give you the evidence you are asking for.

No, no , no

You tell me what claims have I made and then you tell me in what minute in the video is that specific claim refuted.

 

[leroy]

T

What unreasonable assumptions are made?

For example in Potassium Argon dating, how do you know that the initial amout of argon was zero?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, no , no

You tell me what claims have I made and then you tell me in what minute in the video is that specific claim refuted.

No, we are on to that game of yours. There is no debate any longer. There is only a discussion where you are corrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example in Potassium Argon dating, how do you know that the initial amout of argon was zero?

Mick Jaeger can explain that to you:

 

[Jose Fly]

The point is that while the age of the fossils given by dating methods favor evolution over the flood model, its not a knock down argument. There is room for reasonable doubt.

Do you really think that's consistent with the views of mainstream geologists? Do you think they have "reasonable doubt" about whether the geologic record supports evolution or the Biblical flood?

 

[ecco]

The point is that while the age of the fossils given by dating methods favor evolution over the flood model, its not a knock down argument. There is room for reasonable doubt.

The two flood models that you and I discussed both end with the ark and its inhabitants dying. So, no, there is no room for reasonable doubt.

 

[F1fan]

The point is that while the age of the fossils given by dating methods favor evolution over the flood model, its not a knock down argument. There is room for reasonable doubt.

No it's pretty much a knock down argument. And there's no reasonable doubt. The only doubt is by people who have contempt for science, and value a poor interpretation of an ancient book of stories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In that case can you please help me out and explain where is our point of disagreement? (on the feathers and mammals issue)

I already did on multiple occasions. Go back and read it.

Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point is that while the age of the fossils given by dating methods favor evolution over the flood model, its not a knock down argument. There is room for reasonable doubt.

Curiously, it's only creationists and alike, who really want the flood myth to be true, who tend to believe this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so (and this is an honest question, not meant to be tricky)

1 modern Birds don’t have teeth

Their ancestors did. The genes to make teeth were switched of in bird lineages about 100 million years ago.
The genetic remnants are still present in bird genomes.

2 then birds with teeth were found in the fossil record

Doesn't matter. We don't require fossils to know their ancestors had teeth. We can determine that by extant DNA alone.

3 this didn’t cause any problem for evolution (the ancestors of birds had teeth no big deal)

Why would it?

What would be different if we ever find a mammal with feathers in the fossil record ?.... why couldnt we simply say “the ancestors of mammals had feathers, no big deal)

It's explained in the post you are replying to.

Maybe a drawing will help. Eventhough I have trouble taking it seriously that you still don't understand it.

At the top, in A, we have an ancestor with scales.

Then there is a split. One branch goes on to evolve feathers in D (not C - not all thos on that branch were /are feathered). The other branch goes on to evolve hair instead of feathers. I told you previously that hair and feathers are homologous. Meaning: you have one or the other (or none, in case of branch C). What is hair in the mammal, are feathers in birds.

This is not just some "guess" or "opinion" or "assumption" or whatever-word-you-wish-to-use. This is rather a reflection of all the data coming form comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, the fossil record, etc. MULTIPLE independent lines of evidence that all converge on the same hierarchical tree.


So you ask, what is the "problem" with saying that feathers already evolved in A?
Well, then we should see feathers in A, B, C and D. Or at least genetic remnants thereof, like with birth teeth building genes..

Instead, we ONLY find feathers, or the genes for feathers, in D.

So, finding a creature on branch B with feathers - while all else remains the same - would be a violation of the nested hierarchy.


If you still don't comprehend now, you never will.
And I can only blame willful ignorance.


PS: note how my prediction of you ignoring the points raised, was spot on.

 

[leroy]

Their ancestors did. The genes to make teeth were switched of in bird lineages about 100 million years ago.

And what would stop you to say the same thing about feathers? ..if there where mammals with feathers in the fossil record you could interpret the evidence like this modern mammals don’t have feathers but their ancestors did)

The genetic remnants (for teeth) are still present in bird genomes.

But that is a rare exception, we usually don’t find the genetic remains of stuff that we used to have, it could be the case that feathers in mammals where lost say 80Mya and no remains where left.

So in a parallel universe where everything is exactly the same, only with the difference that there are some feathered mammals in the fossils record , (and Darwin is aware of that) evolution would still be true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And what would stop you to say the same thing about feathers?

For crying out loud................................................

How many times must the same thing be explained to you?
Look at the drawing in the post you are responding to.
Read what is written below it, where your question is answered.

..if there where mammals with feathers in the fossil record you could interpret the evidence like this modern mammals don’t have feathers but their ancestors did)

No. And I already explained why.

Unlike birds who DO have the teeth building genes, mammals don't have feather building genes. They have hair building genes instead.

Again, if feathers evolved in A (in the drawing), then that would be reflected in every branch below it: b, c and d.

Instead, we only find feathers (or the genes for feathers) in D. Nowhere else.

So, finding a single creature with feathers on a branch that is NOT branch D, would be a violation of the nested hierarchy.

A feline with feathers would be a violation of the nested hierarchy.
Its feathers would place it on branch D.
Its mammary glands would place it on branch A.
There's your conflict. You can't be on 2 branches.

Seriously, how many times must it be repeated????????

But that is a rare exception, we usually don’t find the genetic remains of stuff that we used to have

False.

All birds have a gene that deactivates the formation of teeth

How Birds Lost Their Teeth | Audubon

, it could be the case that feathers in mammals where lost say 80Mya and no remains where left.

No. And this comment of yours also kind of reveals how simpleton your view of genetics is.
Almost akin to thinking that 1 gene = 1 trait or something similar.
In reality, a trait is a result of a complex cooperation between plenty of genes and sequences.

So, no, the genetics for feather building aren't simply going to "disappear" from a lineage like that.
On top of that, another point that you continue to ignore very stubbornly, is that hair and feathers are homologous. Do you even know what that means?

So in a parallel universe where everything is exactly the same, only with the difference that there are some feathered mammals in the fossils record , (and Darwin is aware of that) evolution would still be true.

No and I explained at length already why not.

Seems I have supernatural powers to, as my prediction was spot on again: ignoring the points made and doubling down on your ignorance.

I further predict that this will simply continue.

 

[leroy]

For crying out loud................................................

How many times must the same thing be explained to you?

You don’t need to explain more, what you have to do is support your claims.

Look at the drawing in the post you are responding to.
Read what is written below it, where your question is answered

.
From your drawing if A would have had feathers, then mammals with feathers would have been possible and even expected. (agree?)

Again, if feathers evolved in A (in the drawing), then that would be reflected in every branch below it: b, c and d.

And why would that be problem for evolutionary theory? yes if A woudl have had feathers then b,c, and d woudl also have feathers why woudl that be a problem for evolution?
--------------------
So in summery

1 we both seem to agree that feathers could have evolved at some other point

2 we both agree that if feathers would have had evolved in “A” (from your drawing) mammals with feathers would be possible.

3 we both agree that this would be a problem for evolution all you have to do is change the tree a little bit

4 we both agree (hopefully) that we don’t always keep the genetic remains of stuff that our ancestors had (meaning that not finding mammals with residual genes for feathers would not be surprising)

So can you please tell me which are the points where we disagree?

False.

All birds have a gene that deactivates the formation of teeth

How Birds Lost Their Teeth | Audubon

Strawman

What I said is that we don’t always keep the remains of genes from stuff that evolved millions of years ago. Agree?



--