A creationist model

[lunakilo]

This thread is a spinoff of a thread on speciation

If you use the term species as meaning 2 groups of animals which can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
And kind to mean a group of species descending from an original-species/proto-kind.

then ...

But havent' the creationists managed to come up with a model which fits the date at this point then?

If you agree that speciation happens, then the simplest interpretation of that data I can come up with is something like this:

But can you really disprove that the following picture is right?

 

[Krok]

That is what I ment by dating. Wrong term to use here I guess. I ment placement tin time reletive to each other.

We call it relative dating. Gravity plays a huge role in depositing sedimentary deposits.

Assume you find 3 fossils a, b and c. a younger than b, and b and c more or less the same age.

This already falsifies the creationist model, as their model states that these fossils were all created on the same day or a day or two apart. How would these fossils then be deposited in different layers, one older than the other? Why don't you find any plant fossils in the bottom layers, but they only appear later?

You can't see just from this if a is a predecessor to b AND c or to just one of them (or none of them)

No, but you can study the fossils and draw very educated conclusions from your studies.

A creationist could claim that b and c are different kinds and a is a predecessor to one of them.

Anybody can claim anything. My answer to that will be: show your work. How does a creation in a day or two produce only fossils a in the bottom layer and only b and c in the top layer?

Or that b and c are the same kind and a is a predecessor to both b and c.

Again, I'll ask them to show their work. I'll also ask them to define "kind". This question always has the same effect on them: :run:

The data could still be fit into the creationists model.

No, the creationist model includes a global flood with all the fossil-bearing strata deposited in one flood. You would then expect to find all the fossils mixed together in one layer, or if the "flood" caused the layering we see in the sequences (how this can happen only creationists would know), the bigger and heavier fossils mixed with coarse-grained material would be at the bottom, becoming finer-grained with fossils of small animals towards the top. In a flood you thus expect to see fossils of dinausaurs and elephants towards the bottom and fossils of mice towards the top. Gravity still works the same, it doesn't matter how big the flood is.

A creation in a few days followed by a global flood would never be able to deposit the layers and the fossils in the arrangement they are found. Unless gravity somehow disappeared. Or magic somehow appeared. Then it's not science anymore.

 

[Krok]

Sorry, I forgot to answer the direct questions. Stratigraphy and relative dating shows that, at the bottom we find no life, a little higher up simple prokaryotes, a little higher up prokaryotes that could photosynthesize, a little higher up eukaryotes (with prokaryotes), a little higher up multicellular life together with eukaryotes and prokaryotes, a little higher up simple animals together with the others, a little higher up also arthropods, a little higher up also more complex life, a little higher up also fish and proto-amphibians, a little higher up all those and land animals and plants, a little higher up also reptiles, a little higher up also dinosaurs and mammals, a little higher up non-avian dinosaurs disappear, a little higher up also more modern mammals and flowering plants, a little higher up all those and modern humans. A six-day creation coupled with a global flood can’t possibly explain this sequence.

 

[painted wolf]

Creationists also have to fit into their model the fact that the earliest members of their "kinds" look so very much like members of other "kinds". (not that a "kind" is ever usefully described)

Thus the earliest of the "dog kind" looks very much like a member of the "weasel kind" and the earliest of the "bear kind" look very much like members of the "dog kind".... and the earliest of the "mammal kind" are very much like members of the "synapsid reptile kind" (so much in fact that the line between the two is extremely blurry).

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A six-day creation coupled with a global flood can’t possibly explain this sequence.

It can if God created it as you described in order to confuse us... just like he created light in motion and gave stars a short life.

 

[Oneatatime]

An adaption of the phylogenetic tree I posted. My primary objection to the creationist 'kinds' version is that it requires the large body of genetic and molecular evidence for common decent to be written off as mere coincidence.

 

[newhope101]

Creationists also have to fit into their model the fact that the earliest members of their "kinds" look so very much like members of other "kinds". (not that a "kind" is ever usefully described)

Thus the earliest of the "dog kind" looks very much like a member of the "weasel kind" and the earliest of the "bear kind" look very much like members of the "dog kind".... and the earliest of the "mammal kind" are very much like members of the "synapsid reptile kind" (so much in fact that the line between the two is extremely blurry).
Rubbish PW

Miacoidea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canidae are meant to be related to the martin-like miacoidea, which looks nothing like a dog at all. And the lizard like synapsid doesn't look like any mammal at all.

Mammaliaformes ("mammal-shaped") is a clade that contains the mammals and their closest extinct relatives. Phylogenetically, it is defined as a clade including the most recent common ancestor of Sinoconodon, morganuconodonts, docodonts, Monotremata, Marsupialia, Placentalia, extinct members of this clade, and all of its descendants.[1] The precise phylogeny is disputed due to the scantness of evidence in the fossil record. However, it is thought that the Mammaliaformes were of three major groups: Allotheria, the longest extinct lineage of pre-mammals; Docodonta, including close relatives such as Morganucodonta; and Symmetrodonta, the most basal of modern mammals. Mammaliaformes radiated from Cynodontia. The Probainognathians of the Eucynodont clade probably evolved into the early mammaliaformes, but the branch Allotheria was so different that they may have come from an entirely different group of cynodonts.
Mammaliaformes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What stretch of the imagination and desperation is involved to think this little creature is anything but a plain old mammal. Mammaliforms are a great joke on you...but I understand quoting this nonsense is the best you have......
wa:do

The Coelacanth may be seen as a good example of evidence for creation and an embarassment for evolutionists. They are related to lung fish and tetrapods and were meant to represent the missing link. Well guess what in 1938 one was caught alive. Then of course there is tiktaalik also some supposed missing link that supposedly landed. Of course tetrapod footprints dated 10my older that tiktaalic were found.
Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just like any creature you propose as some 'missing link' it is just a matter of time before it is found to be rubbish and rather supports a creationist ideology. You may as well try to show how a cat evolved from a dog and then evolved into a mouse. It is just straw grabbing.

What you have are fossils that show dog like kinds and those that don't and nothing in the middle at all. Likewise with mammals, you can call some poor creature a mammaliform to prop up your theory, but in fact this is straw grabbing. We all know what your researchers made of Neanderthal, the chimp man, prior to genetic testing. Likewise one does well to be skeptical of any representation of some old bones sketched up to suit 'common thinking', overturned many times over the years.

The coelacanth is a fish kind that was created as such and never evolved to sprout legs. Footprints that predate Tiktaalic by 10my support the creationist view that kinds were created much as they appear today and some other kinds did not survive.

 

[Oneatatime]

Newhope your comments just demonstrate that you are ignorant of evolution.

 

[meogi]

How many kinds of insects are there?

 

[painted wolf]

Actually Newhope I was talking about the earliest dogs... not miacids.

Hesperocyon for example:

It is very much like advanced miacids like Miacis. Thanks for pointing that out!

And yes, the advanced synapsids are extremely mammal like...if you see a lizard in this, you are clearly confused as to what a lizard is.

Once again you are simply cherry picking words you like out of wikipedia articles without bothering to read either context or the actual information presented and then jumping to conclusions.

wa:do

ps... I never propose "missing links" it's an outdated and misleading concept that has no place in modern evolutionary biology.

 

[Krok]

It can if God created it as you described in order to confuse us... just like he created light in motion and gave stars a short life.

It's the devil, I'll tell you. All done to lead people astray.

 

[Krok]

It seems like Newhope101 is another creationist who thinks that trying to find fault in evolution means that creation must be true. Newhope, before you go on, realize that creation won’t be accepted without evidence for creation. It won’t be done with evidence “against” evolution. It can only be done with evidence for creation. After that you also have to provide evidence that it was your particular chosen god who “created”, and not Thor.

Also I see you don’t want to touch my first or second post in this thread, but just keep going with Gish-gallop. A typical creationist tactic to avoid answering difficult questions derived from evidence. Newhope, why don’t we find the fossils of elephants together with those prokaryotes in 3.2 billion year old rocks? Why do we have such a clear pattern in those rocks? You know, the lowest and oldest fossils are prokaryotes and the youngest look very similar to modern animals?

The Coelacanth may be seen as a good example of evidence for creation ….

How so? The coelacanth fossils found were in sediments dating from the Devonian to the late Cretaceous. They are not found in rocks dating from the Cambrian Period, which indicates that they developed hundreds of millions of years after those from the Cambrian.

…..and an embarassment for evolutionists.

How so? I’ve heard this claim many times before from creationists, but not one has ever attempted to explain why it is such an “embarrassment for evolutionists”.

They are related to lung fish and tetrapods and were meant to represent the missing link.

How so? Living species can still be a link. I can give you an example of the wolf and dogs. The wolf is the common ancestor of all dogs. A link.

Well guess what in 1938 one was caught alive.

Quite a few wolves are caught alive every year.

Then of course there is tiktaalik also some supposed missing link that supposedly landed.

Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil (link). Do you think that there’s only one transitional fossil in the tree of life?

Of course tetrapod footprints dated 10my older that tiktaalik were found.

This is evidence against creation, as those footprints were not those of a modern animal or any animal we know to exist today.

Just like any creature you propose as some 'missing link' it is just a matter of time before it is found to be rubbish and rather supports a creationist ideology.

Maybe this is where you make your big mistake. Science is not like your religion or the creationist ideology. Science is a method.

You may as well try to show how a cat evolved from a dog and then evolved into a mouse. It is just straw grabbing.

No, one of the very important repurcussions of the ToE is that cats have never evolved from dogs and it is impossible for a cat to evolve into a mouse. You have to get yourself a bit more educated on what the ToE is and the consequences of it.

What you have are fossils that show dog like kinds and those that don't and nothing in the middle at all.

No, we have a series of fossils showing transitional features from reptiles to mammals and then some mammals which were wolf like. I hope you realize that dogs evolved from wolfs in the last 200 000 years? I hope you realize that the wolf is a transitional animal between dog-like creatures and dogs?

Likewise with mammals, you can call some poor creature a mammaliform to prop up your theory, but in fact this is straw grabbing.

Fossil and rock grabbing and studying, in this case. They tell us a lot more about animals and depositional environments than straw does.

We all know what your researchers made of Neanderthal, the chimp man, prior to genetic testing.

Well, genetic testing showed that Neanderthals were also from the same common ancestor as humans. Just like the fossils tell us.

Likewise one does well to be skeptical of any representation of some old bones sketched up to suit 'common thinking', overturned many times over the years.

I think some old bones can tell us more about an organism than some old book can.

The coelacanth is a fish kind that was created as such and never evolved to sprout legs.

Who has ever proposed that the Coelacanth ever sprouted legs? Are you creating a straw man? Coelacanth is a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods.

Footprints that predate Tiktaalic by 10my support the creationist view that kinds were created much as they appear today and some other kinds did not survive.

Tiktaalik is still a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods, as it shows features of both. How can this ever indicate creation?
Why don’t we find elephant fossils along with those of Tiktaalik in the same sequence? You know, that would be evidence against evolution.

 

[lunakilo]

Creationists also have to fit into their model the fact that the earliest members of their "kinds" look so very much like members of other "kinds". (not that a "kind" is ever usefully described)

Thus the earliest of the "dog kind" looks very much like a member of the "weasel kind" and the earliest of the "bear kind" look very much like members of the "dog kind".... and the earliest of the "mammal kind" are very much like members of the "synapsid reptile kind" (so much in fact that the line between the two is extremely blurry).

wa:do

I wouldn't hold the fact that different kinds of animals look similar against the model.
It may be strange, but dosn't disprove anything.

It is a common trick in the animal world for different species to look alike.
here are som examples: Mimicy

Sorry, I forgot to answer the direct questions. Stratigraphy and relative dating shows that, at the bottom we find no life, a little higher up simple prokaryotes, a little higher up prokaryotes that could photosynthesize, a little higher up eukaryotes (with prokaryotes), a little higher up multicellular life together with eukaryotes and prokaryotes, a little higher up simple animals together with the others, a little higher up also arthropods, a little higher up also more complex life, a little higher up also fish and proto-amphibians, a little higher up all those and land animals and plants, a little higher up also reptiles, a little higher up also dinosaurs and mammals, a little higher up non-avian dinosaurs disappear, a little higher up also more modern mammals and flowering plants, a little higher up all those and modern humans. A six-day creation coupled with a global flood can’t possibly explain this sequence.

This is more of a problem
I will have to give it some give it some thought.

 

[Krok]

This is more of a problem
I will have to give it some give it some thought.

It is a an insurmountable problem for evolution-deniers such as YEC's and others. That's why they ignore it. (Newhope is a prime example). They have to deny every natural science in the world if they want to counter it. Hence the Gish-gallop.

Oh, I forgot to add, reality disproves that second illustration in your post in various other ways. That's why I said the second one is disproved. Every other science in the world comes to the same conclusion. Other people would know more about the other sciences than me and could add their expertise if they are present on this forum.

The overwhelming majority of scientists in those fields all come to the same conclusion (more than 99.9% of them). In some countries, where religionists like fundamentalist Christians or Muslims are not present amongst the scientific community , the figure is 100%.

 

[painted wolf]

I wouldn't hold the fact that different kinds of animals look similar against the model.
It may be strange, but dosn't disprove anything.

It is a common trick in the animal world for different species to look alike.
here are som examples: Mimicy

Mimicry is easy to detect when you are looking closely at morphology. For example a wolf and a thylacene are very much alike but we can clearly see they are not related. The thylacene is clearly a marsupial while the wolf is clearly a placental.

The details of the palate, teeth, sinus, auditory bulla and other features of the skull alone distinguish them.

Modern Canids are united by having specific features of these skull elements not found in any other groups. Lets take one example... the auditory bulla:

In modern canids the auditory bulla is distinct in being inflated larger than typical for other mammals, being divided by low bony septum and having the internal carotid artery partially also enclosed in the same type of bone.

You can see in the fossil record the development of this type of auditory bulla from the basal condition in carnivorans. The genus Hesperocyon for example has these features... clearly making it a "dog". However not as well developed as later "dogs" (not as swollen for example). It also lacks other modern features, like having all five toes in contact with the ground and feet that indicate that it wasn't fully ditigrade.

You can even see the starts of the development of this bulla in later advanced Miacids, which gives us clues as to which Genus and species of Miacid may be the ancestor of the Canids.

Now mimicking the gross appearance of another group is pretty common, but getting such small details of anatomy exactly the same are highly unlikely.

Even in Thylacenes, the more canid-like "mimics" you still have a marsupial ear.

wa:do

ps... I would agree that if they just kind of "looked similar" then that would be valid... but this goes way byeond just looking kind of alike.

 

[lunakilo]

Mimicry is easy to detect when you are looking closely at morphology. For example a wolf and a thylacene are very much alike but we can clearly see they are not related. The thylacene is clearly a marsupial while the wolf is clearly a placental.

The details of the palate, teeth, sinus, auditory bulla and other features of the skull alone distinguish them.

Modern Canids are united by having specific features of these skull elements not found in any other groups. Lets take one example... the auditory bulla:

In modern canids the auditory bulla is distinct in being inflated larger than typical for other mammals, being divided by low bony septum and having the internal carotid artery partially also enclosed in the same type of bone.

You can see in the fossil record the development of this type of auditory bulla from the basal condition in carnivorans. The genus Hesperocyon for example has these features... clearly making it a "dog". However not as well developed as later "dogs" (not as swollen for example). It also lacks other modern features, like having all five toes in contact with the ground and feet that indicate that it wasn't fully ditigrade.

You can even see the starts of the development of this bulla in later advanced Miacids, which gives us clues as to which Genus and species of Miacid may be the ancestor of the Canids.

Now mimicking the gross appearance of another group is pretty common, but getting such small details of anatomy exactly the same are highly unlikely.

Even in Thylacenes, the more canid-like "mimics" you still have a marsupial ear.

wa:do

ps... I would agree that if they just kind of "looked similar" then that would be valid... but this goes way byeond just looking kind of alike.

We keep comming back to that fossil record don't we

Ok, forget mimicy then and let us look at the fossils

I can think of 2 ways to explain why early dogs and early weasels look alike

1) They are the same kind. My definition of kind from the OP allow for different species being of the same kind.
I don't know the fossil record well enough to know if it would be at all possible play the "connect the dots game" in a way where you can group the fossils into lineages of different kinds.
I am sure you would answer no to that, and a creationist would answer yes.
And I would be no wiser.

2) You have put your evolutionist glasses on so when you look at the fossils what you see is this:

dog ..... weasel
.|..........|
.\........../
..\......../
...\....../
....\..../
.....\../
early dog/weasel

When in reality it could just as weel be like this:

dog ........ weasel
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
early dog .. early weasel (undiscovered)

 

[painted wolf]

We keep comming back to that fossil record don't we

Sorry I can't help myself... I'm looking to get my higher degrees in paleontology.

Ok, forget mimicy then and let us look at the fossils

I can think of 2 ways to explain why early dogs and early weasels look alike

1) They are the same kind. My definition of kind from the OP allow for different species being of the same kind.
I don't know the fossil record well enough to know if it would be at all possible play the "connect the dots game" in a way where you can group the fossils into lineages of different kinds.
I am sure you would answer no to that, and a creationist would answer yes.
And I would be no wiser.

If you tried hard enough, you could do whatever you wanted... but it would it be supportable by the evidence?

2) You have put your evolutionist glasses on so when you look at the fossils what you see is this:

dog ..... weasel
.|..........|
.\........../
..\......../
...\....../
....\..../
.....\../
early dog/weasel

When in reality it could just as weel be like this:

dog ........ weasel
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
early dog .. early weasel (undiscovered)

[/quote] If it is, it brings up some awkward questions about God.
Why would god create the first kinds to be so very much alike? Why would evolution post-creation come up with so much more variety in form than the initial creation did?

Why did God create the first dog later than the first weasel?

I'm not unsympathetic to creationism... I'm a theist, and by definition a "creationist", though clearly not a Biblical literalist. But thus far there is no good evidence to back the "creationist model". (simply saying "science doesn't have all the answers" isn't good evidence)

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Sorry I can't help myself... I'm looking to get my higher degrees in paleontology.

If you tried hard enough, you could do whatever you wanted... but it would it be supportable by the evidence?

If it is, it brings up some awkward questions about God.
Why would god create the first kinds to be so very much alike? Why would evolution post-creation come up with so much more variety in form than the initial creation did?

Why did God create the first dog later than the first weasel? What a silly statement PW? You have no idea what God crearted first or second. All you think you know comes from biased theoretical assertions that may be thrown into the rubbish bin of delusionary evidence past, tomorrow,

I'm not unsympathetic to creationismYes you are... I'm a theist, and by definition a "creationist", though clearly not a Biblical literalist. But thus far there is no good evidence to back the "creationist model". (simply saying "science doesn't have all the answers" isn't good evidence) Yes there is. You have found kinds fully formed and need to invent a plethora of convoluted theoretical assertions to turn plain evidence for the creation into an evolutionary mystery.

wa:do[/quote]




Evolutionists are far from having the answers also. In fact all you have a theoretical assertions for any lineage once it falls away from appearing to be the same kind.

I agree with lunakilo. Really when it comes down to it 'maybe, possibly' do not sound like scientific descriptors to me.

PW suggested the common ancestor of canidae was bear like. How is this for an idea? Maybe it was a bear ancestor or maybe your researchers actually have no idea past a wish list.

Your researchers found Prohesperocyon, purportedly the oldest canine, over 36myo.
Prohesperocyon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miacids are thought to have evolved into today's modern carnivorous mammals of the order Carnivora. They were small marten-like carnivores with long, little bodies and long tails. Some species were arboreal while others lived on the ground.
Miacids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you have Parictis, the oldest bear, dated to 37mya.
Parictis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is only evolutionists desperation to show ancestry that would lead anyone to believe that bears aren't simply bears and were created to be such as were wolves.

Then of course there is another embarrassment to evos similar to the tetrapod landing debarkle in tiktaalik, coelacanth and in Cephalogale once though to be an ancestor of all bears. Seriouly you need to find some solid evidence to put forward as this Maybe and Probably and Thought to be, research is getting comical, and should never be put up as serious evidence for anything.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cephalogale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cephalogale is an extinct genus of bear-like hemicyonidcarnivore of the late Oligocene through Miocene epochs, endemic to North America and Europe living from around 33.9—20 Ma, existing for approximately 13.9 million years.
Before it was reconsidered to be close to the ancestry of hemicyonids, Cephalogale was once considered to be an ancestor of all bears.[1]
Cephalogale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As usual, there are no intermediate looking species around today as they miraculously ALL became extinct. I'd like to see a dogbear. I think it would be cute!

What you have found are kinds created much the same as they are today and others that went extinct. It is about the fossil record as all your other theoretical modellling is even more far fetched than the fossil conundrum. Let's not forget the apeman Neanderthal that morphed into a homo sapien with the stroke of a pen, the wave of a hand, and some DNA analysis.

 

[Jose Fly]

So wait a second NewHope....one one hand you complain about scientists claiming certain evolutionary explanations or pathways as "facts", only to later retract or alter them as new data is collected, yet now you're complaining about scientists describing evolutionary explanations with words such as "possibly" and "likely". IOW, if they speak with certainty, you criticize them, but if they speak with less certainty you criticize them for that!

Gosh, if a person didn't know better, he'd almost think you were the type of person who had such a chip on your shoulder, you'll moan and complain no matter what scientists do.

 

[painted wolf]

Where did you get my saying the ancestors of dogs are "bear like" ?
I've also never said that science has "all the answers".

I have never said such a thing and never would. I don't know where you get these ideas from but it's not from anything I've said.... Perhaps you need to re-read what I've actually said and pay closer attention?

And yes, I am sympathetic.... but I can't blindly accept such silly statements as "god created dog kind fully formed" when "dog kind" isn't defined in any meaningful way and the term "fully formed" is useless... what would a "partially formed" "dog kind" be exactly?

What is "dog kind" and how do we tell what is and what is not "dog kind"?

What is "fully formed"? What would a not "fully formed" dog look like?

wa:do