Evolution Observed

[Hockeycowboy]

So you're suggesting that they're lying (despite the fact I have literally shown you a gallery of pre-cambrian fossils)?

I never said there weren’t pre-Cambrian fossils. Grief. But saying they are the ancestral lines of those in the Cambrian,...there is no evidence linking them! That’s why it’s stated the body plans of the Cambrian fossils “appear abruptly”.
I can post more articles.

Take care.

 

[Jose Fly]

Never seen any

That's ok, it wouldn't make any difference to you anyways, right?

How can you, when the experts who’ve closely studied the evidence admit these life forms appeared abruptly?

I know it's popular among JW's to favor quotes over data, but that's not how things work in science.

How can you tell if these so-called transitional, long-dead fossils even had offspring? Please.

Well, I suppose if you want to argue that every transitional fossil was merely an atypical specimen that was completely unlike any of the others in its population, and as such never reproduced, I'll just let that speak for itself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I never said there weren’t pre-Cambrian fossils. Grief.

You said the cambrian fossils occurred "without precursors". But they did have precursors. There are pre-cambrian fossils.

But saying they are the ancestral lines of those in the Cambrian,...there is no evidence linking them! That’s why it’s stated the body plans of the Cambrian fossils “appear abruptly”.

No, it states that they "appeared abruptly" because they were the result of a relatively rapid speciation event. And when I say "relatively rapid", we are still talking 70 to 80 million years.

I can post more articles.

The question is, can you actually understand them?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You said the cambrian fossils occurred "without precursors". But they did have precursors. There are pre-cambrian fossils.


No, it states that they "appeared abruptly" because they were the result of a relatively rapid speciation event. And when I say "relatively rapid", we are still talking 70 to 80 million years.

Translation: “I hope, I hope, I hope!”

“70 to 80 million years.”? Source, please. 30 to 40 million, maybe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Translation: “I hope, I hope, I hope!”

Translation: "I don't have an argument".

“70 to 80 million years.”? Source, please.

My mistake, I included the post-cambrian expansion in the Ordovician period.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's ok, it wouldn't make any difference to you anyways, right?


I know it's popular among JW's to favor quotes over data, but that's not how things work in science.


Well, I suppose if you want to argue that every transitional fossil was merely an atypical specimen that was completely unlike any of the others in its population, and as such never reproduced, I'll just let that speak for itself.

Lol. Yeah, let the data in the fossil record speak for itself! But then, after examining it to get a more finely-detailed gradation between purported links, us IDers always get the ubiquitous excuse, “Well, the fossil record isn’t complete.”

I surmise it’s more ‘complete’ than you evolutionists want to accept!

Many of those who support modification with descent, in order to draw theists to their side, ask, “Why do we have to take God out of the equation? He could’ve started life....it just evolved from there.” But when it comes right down to it, you really want to ignore Him altogether.

Ignore all you want. It’s free will.

 

[Jose Fly]

Lol. Yeah, let the data in the fossil record speak for itself! But then, after examining it to get a more finely-detailed gradation between purported links, us IDers always get the ubiquitous excuse, “Well, the fossil record isn’t complete.”

Well yeah.....I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the fossil record from 500 million years ago is incomplete both in terms of its preservation and subsequent discovery by paleontologists.

I surmise it’s more ‘complete’ than you evolutionists want to accept!

Based on what?

Many of those who support modification with descent, in order to draw theists to their side, ask, “Why do we have to take God out of the equation? He could’ve started life....it just evolved from there.” But when it comes right down to it, you really want to ignore Him altogether.

Ignore all you want. It’s free will.

When I first read this I was puzzled....."What in the world is he talking about? I said nothing about God." But then I remembered, that's all this is really about for you. And don't take that as an insult or anything; it's true of pretty much every creationist.

BTW, I asked you earlier and you must have missed.....what exactly is the ID creationist explanation for the Cambrian fossil record?

 

[james dixon]

The origin of DNA would/could answer all the questions posed here. Every living creature on this planet; from microbes, bacteria, insects, fish, birds and animals contain one thing in common; DNA.

Find the origin, source of this DNA & you found the answer to creationism

in my view -

 

[Subduction Zone]

The origin of DNA would/could answer all the questions posed here. Every living creature on this planet; from microbes, bacteria, insects, fish, birds and animals contain one thing in common; DNA.

Find the origin, source of this DNA & you found the answer to creationism

in my view -

There is a problem with this. There are limits to how much DNA an individual has is limited. One can only have two alleles of a particular gene at the most. If you believe the Adam and Eve myth they would only have the two alleles that Adam had and Adam's X Chromosome had would have had to have been doubled for Eve, This would leave a founder's effect that would be observable of thousands of years. Why don't we observe that?

 

[james dixon]

This would leave a founder's effect that would be observable of thousands of years. Why don't we observe that?

It could be a problem of not seeing the forest for the trees

 

[Subduction Zone]

It could be a problem of not seeing the forest for the trees

You appear to have no clue as to what was wrong with your claim. Why not try to learn instead of posting nonsense?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You appear to have no clue as to what was wrong with your claim. Why not try to learn instead of posting nonsense?

Such a linear POV will never enable one to see the whole picture. It’s always the other person who ‘doesn’t understand’. Quite arrogant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such a linear POV will never enable one to see the whole picture. It’s always the other person who ‘doesn’t understand’. Quite arrogant.

Hardly. It is amazing how ignorant people call others "arrogant'. Instead of laughing at what you do not understand it would be much wiser to learn what your error is. But I have notice that almost all creationists are afraid to learn. They appear to know that knowledge is their enemy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hardly. It is amazing how ignorant people call others "arrogant'. Instead of laughing at what you do not understand it would be much wiser to learn what your error is. But I have notice that almost all creationists are afraid to learn. They appear to know that knowledge is their enemy.

That’s funny stuff!
And yet, I read and write scientific papers almost everyday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s funny stuff!
And yet, I read and write scientific papers everyday.

Really? If that is the case then why do you continually demonstrate that you are incredibly ignorant of the sciences?

This is the internet. I can claim that I bench press elephants every day. It does not make it so. If you can't support your claims, then you have nothing.

I can support mine. When are you going to support your claims about the myths that you believe in?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Really? If that is the case then why do you continually demonstrate that you are incredibly ignorant of the sciences?

This is the internet. I can claim that I bench press elephants every day. It does not make it so. If you can't support your claims, then you have nothing.

I can support mine. When are you going to support your claims about the myths that you believe in?

My expertise lies in the fields of anthropology and archaeology.
You haven’t supported anything with evidence, that I have read from your posts. Only parroting, “you’re ignorant....I can teach you.” Please!

 

[Subduction Zone]

My expertise lies in the fields of anthropology and archaeology.
You haven’t supported anything with evidence, that I have read from your posts. Only parroting, “you’re ignorant....I can teach you.” Please!

Then you have not been paying attention.

And I seriously doubt your claim. If that was true you would probably have a good idea of how the founder effect and population bottlenecks refute the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark myths.

By the way, why have you never supported any of your claims? I am betting that I have supported my claims more often than you have yours. Please note, usually when I just offer to support my claims the creationists run away. There is one exception right now that I will not give any evidence to until he learns what is and what is not evidence.

Once again, I bench press elephants every day. That is just as valid of a claim as your of working in a field that you clearly do not understand.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then you have not been paying attention.

And I seriously doubt your claim. If that was true you would probably have a good idea of how the founder effect and population bottlenecks refute the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark myths.

By the way, why have you never supported any of your claims? I am betting that I have supported my claims more often than you have yours. Please note, usually when I just offer to support my claims the creationists run away. There is one exception right now that I will not give any evidence to until he learns what is and what is not evidence.

Once again, I bench press elephants every day. That is just as valid of a claim as your of working in a field that you clearly do not understand.

The current understanding of when those bottlenecks occurred (c. 50,000 yrs, ago), versus the reality of 7.59 billion humans at present, are not in agreement with population growth studies, even at the low end assessments. Many in my field recognize that, but keep quiet.

Interesdting that bottlenecks are even accepted at all, since the Bible gives us details about one. (Seems some evidence just can’t be suppresssed.) Of course, more distant dates are assigned to them — can’t have them agree with Biblical timelines.

That’s a Nono.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For HockeyCowboy, a bit of a primer"

Bottlenecks and founder effects

There are numerous examples in nature, but the problem is that if the Noah's Ark myth was true we would see a universal population bottleneck. The same applies to humans and the Adam and Eve myth. The founder effect from the would still be observable today. This article goes over that. It explains how the human population has never been less than a thousand:

How big was the human population bottleneck? Another staple of theology refuted.

And of course there is what I like to call the Lesson of the Cheetah. About ten thousand years ago they underwent a severe population bottleneck where the effective breeding pool was less than ten individuals. As a result transplants are not a problem for cheetahs even today. Any two cheetahs will be more closely related to each other genetically than you will be with your brothers or sisters assuming none are identical twins:

Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The current understanding of when those bottlenecks occurred (c. 50,000 yrs, ago), versus the reality of 7.59 billion humans at present, are not in agreement with population growth studies, even at the low end assessments. Many in my field recognize that, but keep quiet.

Interesdting that bottlenecks are even accepted at all, since the Bible gives us details about one. (Seems some evidence just can’t be suppresssed.) Of course, more distant dates are assigned to them — can’t have them agree with Biblical timelines.

That’s a Nono.

Where is your evidence for this claim? You do realize that creationists tend to do extremely flawed "studies". I can't think of any such articles of theirs that can be found in a well respected professional journal.

We cross posted a bit. I supported my claims, you . . . not so much.