Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why not? Those are marine fossils. And many of the conditions for fossilization already exist in the seas. It is the terrestrial fossil record that is filled with "holes".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
There are fossils of invertebrate eyes including those of trilobites and insects. I don't know the extent of fossils available from vertebrates, but I recall seeing fish fossils that had evidence of eyes too.
Some retain enough detail to compare them with modern versions of the eye.
It isn't so difficult to believe when there is actual evidence available to examine.
Like these you mean - and is why such often makes the news - their rarity?
One of the best fossil eyes on the planet
About 11 to 16 million years ago, in the middle of the Miocene period, more than 100 caddisflies met their end in a lake.
New light shed on how vertebrates see: Details in eyes of 300-million-year-old lamprey and hagfish fossils
New research has overturned a long-standing theory on how vertebrates evolved their eyes by identifying remarkable details of the retina in the eyes of 300 million year-old lamprey and hagfish fossils.
www.sciencedaily.com
joelr
Well-Known Member
Evolution has been proven. A gap in fossil records means there is a gap in fossil records. Scientists are not like "well we don't know what virus causes this disease so maybe viruses are not actually real?" Of course there are parts of evolution the fossils have not been preserved? Why would that be an issue? I already asked this and you just repeated the question?
But as usual the pieces are slowly coming together:
"
They found that elongation of the giraffe neck occurred in stages, first in the front of the neck vertebrae and then after a few million years in the rear of the vertebrae. These stages of elongation happened in different species, but the modern giraffe is the only species that underwent both transformations, likely to get at progressively higher leaves on trees.
Evidently, though, the elongation started even before the giraffe family originated 16 million years ago. It continued with the extinct genus Samotherium, named after the Greek island of Samos where it was found, which seems to mark the beginning of the transition to modern giraffes. The front part of Samotherium’s vertebrae were elongated and it had long legs and a general slender stature. Sometime after Samotherium, the back portion of the vertebrae got longer.
While giraffes were once widespread over Africa and Eurasia only two members of the giraffe family (Giraffidae) exist today – the giraffe and the okapi. Giraffids are ruminant artiodactyls that share a common ancestor with the groups to which cows and deer belong. They evolved around 25 million years ago, which is quite late for mammal diversification.
The okapi is a part of a distinct group of giraffids, as their ancestors started off with longer necks and over time the necks became shorter. The okapi occupies an area of rainforest in central Africa. This environment is quite different than the grassland savannahs in which the giraffes live, where arid conditions produce tall trees with leaves high from the ground.
The extinct genera Bramatherium and Sivatherium, which may have lived as recently as 8,000 years ago, also seem to have gone down the okapi path. They had strange antler-like ornamentations (ossicones), large, stout bodies and shorter necks.
How the giraffe got its long neck
The giraffe’s long neck must have evolved from a short-necked ancestor. For the first time ever, scientists have used fossil evidence to explain this transformation.
Well they did find that. But you still don't care because you are not looking for what is true but ways to make a myth true.
It cannot be done any more than I can make Zeus true by science denial.
As usual, science doesn't know the exact specifics of every species. Science learns new things through field research and seeing if theories hold up against evidence.
There is speculation that the neck served a different purpose. Again, it doesn't challenge the fact that genes mutate, natural selection happens, gene flow, genetic drift. We don't need EVERY answer to every possible step in any science?
We know elements up to iron are created in supernova, heavier elements like gold were a mystery. Doesn't change the knowledge of supernova creating lighter elements. We suspect neutron star collisions may form gold. But the basic idea is sound and has evidence. There will always be gaps in knowledge.
Butt there is speculation is was a breeding mechanism -
"Previously, the common assumption among scientists was that giraffes’ long necks evolved to help them reach an otherwise untouchable source of food—treetop leaves.
But in the mid-1990s, a set of researchers offered a “necks-for-sex” hypothesis based on the behavior of male giraffes, which compete for dominance by swinging their necks and delivering blows to each other with their heavy skulls, small horns, and stout ossicones on their heads.
The researchers proposed that the result of these head-bashing competitions is the evolution of ever-longer necks. The idea has been hotly debated.
Nearly 20 years since Meng’s discovery, analyses were renewed on the fossils—as well as on others found in the time since using high-resolution CT scans and other techniques. The scientists found that the peculiar morphological characteristics of D. xiezhi show an adaptation for fierce head-butting behavior.
The researchers also studied tooth enamel isotope data from the fossils, which suggest that the species also likely filled a specific ecological niche in the ecosystem unavailable to other today’s herbivores—and that that early giraffoid evolution is more complex than previously known. In addition to competition for food, sexual combat likely played an important role in shaping the group’s unique skull and necks.
“Feeding may be an evolutionary outcome, sex may be the pathway that leads to this outcome, and, above all, each species must find its place in the ecology if it is to survive in a challenging environment,” Meng said..."
New Study on Giraffe Neck Evolution | AMNH
Find out about new research that sheds light on the evolution of giraffes' long necks.
These minor questions are things scientists are working on. They do not invalidate the theory. Fossils are not obliged to happen and it actually fits with the theory!
"Probably only about 100,000 of the estimated 1,239,129 living species of animals have a good chance of fossil preservation. This means that only 8% of the living species of animals have a likelihood of being preserved in sedimentary rocks as fossils."
For one they are separate animals from different locations. One is in Africa and one in North America.
We see a massive variety of mammals and a long neck was not needed for most. If it was a food issue it's because they ate from tall trees and horses ate from lower vegetation. But it might not be related to that. For whatever reason they evolved as they did, there is also evidence of the evolution of both animals.
"Some scientists have long presumed today's giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis, right), which includes a handful of subspecies scattered throughout sub-Saharan Africa, evolved from an animal that looked like its close cousin the okapi (Okapia johnstoni, left), which lives in the tropical forests of central Africa.
Meng, both the creature's teeth and inner ear structure were reminiscent of modern giraffes. They determined that Discokeryx was one of the earliest graffids, an ancestral group of hoofed mammals that gave rise to giraffes. Discokeryx likely resembled an okapi, a forest-dwelling cousin of modern giraffes.
A Brief History of Horses
By 55 million years ago, the first members of the horse family, the dog-sized Hyracotherium, were scampering through the forests that covered North America. For more than half their history, most horses remained small, forest browsers. But changing climate conditions allowed grasslands to expand, and about 20 million years ago, many new species rapidly evolved. Some--but not all--became larger and had the familiar hooves and grazing diets that we associate with horses today. Only these species survived to the present, but in the past, small and large species lived side by side.However Genesis isn't even original but just another vague creation myth, as this site points out while debunking the Quran.
One of the most widespread motifs in creation myths is that of separation of heaven and earth. When we look at culture after culture we see the same idea. At this point, you should really be wondering if Muhammad spoke to Allah or was just repeating what everyone else was saying. Do you notice that the verse above actually draws attention to the fact that the disbelievers were “aware” of this concept? It’s actually saying that we are describing to you what you already know to be true (that the heavens and earth were joined).
Other ancient culture myths of heavens and earth being split
- The Bible (Genesis) that says that in the beginning there was only water, and then God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
- The Greeks who said in the beginning there was only water (the God Oceanus), and then Eurynome separated the sky from the sea by dancing on the waves of Oceanus[ref]Greek creation myths[/ref]
- The Dhammai of India, The Diegenos of California – Earth and heaven had to be separated because no room for growth in the darkness otherwise
- The Romans – separation of heaven and earth by a natural force – a God
- in Ancient Greece Kronos (Time) castrated his father and separated heaven and earth, similarly with the Continental Celts
- Creation myth of the Krachi of Africa the God of heaven rests firmly on Earth and human offspring are nearly smothered, and by lots of squirming father is sent up higher and higher
- Maori and other Polynesian people said that the sky father and earth mother clung so tightly that their children had no choice but to force them apart
- The Snohomish of North Western Africa – people banging their heads against the sky so heaven and earth separated
- Melenesian Solomon Island myth
- Micromesian Mariana Islands myth
- In Mongolia Udan separates heaven and earth with 99 golden columns
- Vietnam giant Khong raises the sky from the earth with his head
- Mesoamerica the Mayan feathered serpent and the god Tepeu use their immense power to separate heaven and earth
- and more… [ref]Reference: Creation Myths of the World: Parts I-II, By David Adams Leeming (Google Books): 1, 2, 3 [/ref]
Quran, Creation Myths of the World and The Big Bang. – Abdullah Sameer
The way the Quran describes the heavens and earth separating sounds very similar to the ancient creation myths. It repeats incorrect ideas, it doesn’t get the order of creation right, […]
friendlyexmuslim.com
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
For one thing the very conditions you gave (above) as needed for fossilization. And if you only have a part of something, it could be about anything. It's only speculation what it even really is.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
That could be a fossil from anything, not necessarily what they claim.Like these you mean - and is why such often makes the news - their rarity?
One of the best fossil eyes on the planet
About 11 to 16 million years ago, in the middle of the Miocene period, more than 100 caddisflies met their end in a lake.phys.org
New light shed on how vertebrates see: Details in eyes of 300-million-year-old lamprey and hagfish fossils
New research has overturned a long-standing theory on how vertebrates evolved their eyes by identifying remarkable details of the retina in the eyes of 300 million year-old lamprey and hagfish fossils.www.sciencedaily.com
And the words you write might mean you understand the implications of these - but the evidence doesn't seem to show this.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
God can’t keep up?What a joke...that the Creator has to adapt his vocabulary to the changeable conventions of his human creation!
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
It only appears to be unsubstantiated to you. Makes perfect sense to me.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Not just a mere belief. Rather, a demonstrable body of knowledge.
And they were right.
Evolution theory doesn't require my "defense". It has evidence to hold itself up.
You have already received that answer multiple times. The problem is not the answer. The problem is the question. It is loaded up with a strawman.
Explained multiple times.
See? Strawman. In gradual processes, there is no "first".
It's like asking "who was the first spanish speaker?".
The question itself is wrong.
Correct. There is no "first" in gradual processes.
No. They egg gradually evolved. Just like spanish.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Well, there's fossils off course.
But let's even ignore fossils for a moment.
Take a look at our collective DNA. And by "our", I indeed mean the DNA of all extant living things.
YOUR DNA, is like a history book for your ancestral lineage. It is the result of hundreds of millions of years of an UNBROKEN chain of ancestors manageing to survive, adding their unique mutations and passing it on to their off spring.
This process makes predictions about the structure of DNA we should find in the world: the hierarchical tree. Aka, a family tree.
And that's exactly what we find.
The genome, is like a history book of our ancestry. A trail of evidence that goes back at least 3.5 billion years.
Nobody on this side of the fence has ever stated that a reptile gave birth to a mammal.
It explains why insisting on asking about the "first" anything, is a misnomer and an invalid question.
Evolution is a gradual process.
So -regardless if you accept the theory or not- asking about a "first" anything concerning a gradual process is by definition an invalid question.
You know... you can reject evolution and still understand that your supposed "gotcha" question is just a strawman.
You can reject evolution and at the same time not lie about what it says or misrepresent what it says.
Insisting on lying about it or misrepresenting it, only hurts your case against it.
It tells us that you have to resort to strawman in order to feel like being able to make a proper argument against it.
And even if it wouldn't be true, it would still be wrong of me to then pretend that you have to smash the lamp with a hammer in order for the genie to come out.
You can disagree with an idea and still not misrepresent it, you know.
Insisting on misrepresenting it, is just dishonest and a waste of everybody's time.
Here is the fact: evolution theory describes a gradual process.
In gradual processes there is no "first".
So, regardless of accepting the theory or not, to then ask "what was the first egg-laying creature", is an invalid question loaded up with a strawman.
Deal with it.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It would be an arbitrary line and if you think about it for 2 seconds, you'ld realize that.
Think about it. Picture that person that you would be identifying as the "first" spanish speaker.
Did that person's peers not speak spanish? I guess not, since (s)he's the "first".
Did that person's parents not speak the same language? I guess not, since (s)he's the "first".
How about the grandparents? The grand-grand parents? They didn't speak the same language?
See?
This isn't about "proving" evolution. Or even supporting it.
This is only about making you understand that your question about the "first egg" is an invalid question, loaded up with a strawman.
Your question assumes that evolution is not a gradual process. Even if you don't accept evolution, the proposed mechanism is what it is. The theory is what it is.
And what it is, is that it's a gradual process.
So any question about "the first anything", is invalid by definition.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
At this point, I don't think anybody is asking you to believe it.
At best, people are trying to just make you stop arguing strawman.
You don't have to believe evolution in order to not misrepresent it.
The longer this continues, the more it looks like you have to insist on misrepresenting it because that seems your only way to argue against it.
Your sarcasm only shows that you insist on arguing strawmen.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And the strawmanning just continues..........................
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yeah, just like the undetectable dragon that follows you everywhere you go.
Yeah, I saw Eric Clapton in concert once.
It was a truelly mystical experience (read in a jamaican accent for dramatic effect)
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why do you assume there aren't?
Different species inhabitting different niches are subject to different selection pressures.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You didn't actually answer his question.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.
And (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah used to call this ^ Almighty One G-d sometimes as G-d the father, right, please?
Friend @SavedByTheLord
Regards
You mean that G-d Almighty is the Creator of All things, neither Jesus-god nor (Holy)Ghost-god, they are not Almighty One G-d, right, please?
And (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah used to call this ^ Almighty One G-d sometimes as G-d the father, right, please?
Friend @SavedByTheLord
Regards
Last edited:
I disagree. If you were from a different planet and were unaware of cell phones, modern cities, or anything invented by mankind or any intelligent being and saw them for the first time, I don't think you would be able to distinguish that which is natural vs that which is designed by the inhabitants of Earth.The only reason you know a leaf is natural, vs a dollar bill an invention from mankind, that a coral reef is natural vs a modern city is an invention of mankind; is because you are familiar with planet Earth and you are familiar with the differences between what is natural vs what was invented by mankind
Esteban X
Active Member
That's just the old Watchmaker Argument. Where it falls down is it compares made objects against naturally occurring objects. Since you posit that god created all things there are no naturally occurring object to provide a comparison. Thus the argument fails