Irony of the evolutionary belief

[McBell]

No, you have not been following the argument. @leroy has been using a personal version of the Fine Tuna Argument (that is particularly fitting because his version is very fishy). He gets angry when he is told that what he is using is a rather different argument that is essentially pointless.

Here is what some believers cannot understand. When they use a rather poor argument for their deity and it is easily shown to be wrong that does not refute God. It only refutes their poor argument.

Now what is ironic about your post is that far too many creationists use sources that are pseudoscientific because anyone that works for them has to swear that no matter what the evidence is that the creation myths of Genesis are true. You cannot say that and claim to be scientific. That is pseudoscience. To be scientific one has to follow the evidence. And right now all of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution largely due to the cowardice and of course incompetence of creation "scientists".

I would add that even Creationists got their heads out the backside and did honest work that proves 110% that evolution is wrong, that still has absolutely no bearing on the existence (either way) of god (regardless of the state of the letter 'g').

 

[leroy]

Not at all. There are many multiple millions of fossils. For something to be fossilized it requires certain conditions, like being buried in material that lacks oxygen. Plus it’s nit as if the whole planet has been explored yet. What has been discovered is amazing, and more fossils are being found as can be funded and experts available to do the work.

Creationism is a failure on its own, but it’s a bigger failure because so many creationists expect science to have all the data abd evidence to a degree that is unreasonable. Creationists demand of science so much more than they can even dream of providing as evidence. Creationism is corrupt and fraud. You associating with it impugns your character.


Here’s an example of the corruption because you creationists can’t offer any fragments of evidence yet demand some unreasonable level of evidence that you won’t accept anyway. And that’s due to the toxic influence of creationism in Christianity.

The gaps in the fossil record are not as severe as the corrupt creationist narrative suggests. The pattern and consistency of evolution is so well documented that the gaps are easily explained by the data in related sciences.

are not as severe

How do you measure severeness,? How big does the gap has to be ?

 

[Pogo]

I don't think the question is ridiculous.

Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”

 

[leroy]

This has been done numerous times

Ok quote one example....can you do that ? No ..... Stop making things up

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is news to me, I didn't know that bats fossils are rare


(I admit my mistake in the previous post)

Good for you. Yes, it takes a "just right" environment. Very fine bones decay very quickly. A forest is about the worst environment for fossilization. Please note when it comes to human fossils many of them were in desert environments where the dry environments allowed the bones to avoid decay until they were buried. The oldest bat fossils are found in one of my favorite formations, the Green River Formation. It was a fresh water lake where the rate of deposition was very low, but the deep waters were anoxic. In other words critter dies and sinks. No oxygen in the water for various other critters that would consume all of the skeleton before it was buried and preserved.

 

[F1fan]

How do you measure severeness,? How big does the gap has to be ?

Anything creationists claim is severe fraud.

Scientists follow the patterns established by the fossil record. In the broad sense there is no doubt that evolution is a real phenomenon. The gaps are most relevant to smaller lineages and their details. The evidence as a whole is so overwhelming that evolution is a practical fact. Even creationists can’t explain the massive numbers of organisms, nor the lineages of subtle changes over time. Time is assessed by the date of strata that fossils are found in. The dating is exceptionally accurate by using decay rates of isotopes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you measure severeness,? How big does the gap has to be ?

Your last question is rather pointless. We have millions of fossils. Any one could conceivably have refuted the theory, but none do.

If you want to have a beginning of knowledge of how many intermediate fossils there are Aron Ra did a video series of about 50 videos that traces evolution from abiogenesis onwards. He has quite a few fossils in every video except for perhaps the one on abiogenesis. That would be a good place to start to understand how rich the current fossil evidence is.

Here is the problem. You are not going to find anything like that in one single article. People are not going to link all of the articles out there for you. Aron Ra is specific enough so that you can easily check any of the claims that he makes. If you really want to watch it, and it will take you days of binge watching, I will link the series for you.

 

[Pogo]

How do you measure severeness,? How big does the gap has to be ?

Video is actually a series of 30 or so still images per second. Most people accept this as evidence of continuous motion. creationists argue that it is proof of God that did all the cartoon drawings in the blank bits in between.
You are a creation of Steven Spielberg and I am just a creation of Walt Kelly

 

[McBell]

Ok quote one example....can you do that ? No ..... Stop making things up

I have no interest in giving you another opportunity to show off your exceedingly excellent skills of denial.

 

[leroy]

Good for you. Yes, it takes a "just right" environment. Very fine bones decay very quickly. A forest is about the worst environment for fossilization. Please note when it comes to human fossils many of them were in desert environments where the dry environments allowed the bones to avoid decay until they were buried. The oldest bat fossils are found in one of my favorite formations, the Green River Formation. It was a fresh water lake where the rate of deposition was very low, but the deep waters were anoxic. In other words critter dies and sinks. No oxygen in the water for various other critters that would consume all of the skeleton before it was buried and preserved.

However even with all those obstacles, we do find both flying and land mammals in the fossil record........ Why don't we find the intermediates (or so few of them) ?

 

[leroy]

Anything creationists claim is severe fraud.

Scientists follow the patterns established by the fossil record. In the broad sense there is no doubt that evolution is a real phenomenon. The gaps are most relevant to smaller lineages and their details. The evidence as a whole is so overwhelming that evolution is a practical fact. Even creationists can’t explain the massive numbers of organisms, nor the lineages of subtle changes over time. Time is assessed by the date of strata that fossils are found in. The dating is exceptionally accurate by using decay rates of isotopes.

I am not aware of any fossil (or set) that would be hard to explain for creationists.


Obviously the genetic evidence (and other lines) show the truth of evolution beyond reasonable doubt ..... But I am not convinced that the fossil record helps (rather than harm) the TOE

 

[Subduction Zone]

However even with all those obstacles, we do find both flying and land mammals in the fossil record........ Why don't we find the intermediates (or so few of them) ?

We do have them. Though the fossil bat looks very "batty" there are differences that an expert could point out to you. And no we do not "need them". Darwin did not rely on fossils at all for his theory. At the time he wrote it the fossil record was very spotty. He predicted, and that prediction was confirmed, that transitional fossils would be found. He never predicted that all transitional fossils would be found.

And there are quite a few factors needed for fossilization. Number one is the correct environment. In most forests even large bodies do not leave fossils behind. The smaller an organism is the faster it decays. So bats, being very small, and having lightweight bones that enable flight are going to decay very very fast. We never expected to have a good fossil record of them.

If you left the dead body of a mouse and had its location very well recorded, you can't bury it, just put some in various parts of a forest and come back in a year. You would be unlikely to find them even after only that short time period. Do it again with a five year interval and I doubt that you could find anything except for maybe the teeth if you sifted the soil. Terrestrial fossils are very very rare. And the smaller the organism the rarer that they are. Even though the largest number of is going to be of the smallest of animals. Huge dinosaur bones could be exposed for years before burial. And they often have signs of that. It is really hard to preserve a mouse skeleton. It is not as if people are trying not to find them, they just know that they are very unlikely to do so. Hmm, mice may be not the best example because some of them do at least live in very dry environments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not aware of any fossil (or set) that would be hard to explain for creationists.


Obviously the genetic evidence (and other lines) show the truth of evolution beyond reasonable doubt ..... But I am not convinced that the fossil record helps (rather than harm) the TOE

It clearly helps by confirming the fossils that we would expect to find. Not finding fossils that we do not expect to find does not hurt the theory.

 

[Pogo]

However even with all those obstacles, we do find both flying and land mammals in the fossil record........ Why don't we find the intermediates (or so few of them) ?

Click here Punctuated Equilibrium

 

[F1fan]

I am not aware of any fossil (or set) that would be hard to explain for creationists.

It doesn’t matter. Creationism isn’t science. It’s not relevant.

Obviously the genetic evidence (and other lines) show the truth of evolution beyond reasonable doubt ..... But I am not convinced that the fossil record helps (rather than harm) the TOE

What you think is irrelevant. We only care what experts report. Just get science right and stop pretending you can form any opinion about it.

 

[leroy]

We do have them. Though the fossil bat looks very "batty" there are differences that an expert could point out to you. And no we do not "need them". Darwin did not rely on fossils at all for his theory. At the time he wrote it the fossil record was very spotty. He predicted, and that prediction was confirmed, that transitional fossils would be found. He never predicted that all transitional fossils would be found.

And there are quite a few factors needed for fossilization. Number one is the correct environment. In most forests even large bodies do not leave fossils behind. The smaller an organism is the faster it decays. So bats, being very small, and having lightweight bones that enable flight are going to decay very very fast. We never expected to have a good fossil record of them.

If you left the dead body of a mouse and had its location very well recorded, you can't bury it, just put some in various parts of a forest and come back in a year. You would be unlikely to find them even after only that short time period. Do it again with a five year interval and I doubt that you could find anything except for maybe the teeth if you sifted the soil. Terrestrial fossils are very very rare. And the smaller the organism the rarer that they are. Even though the largest number of is going to be of the smallest of animals. Huge dinosaur bones could be exposed for years before burial. And they often have signs of that. It is really hard to preserve a mouse skeleton. It is not as if people are trying not to find them, they just know that they are very unlikely to do so. Hmm, mice may be not the best example because some of them do at least live in very dry environments.

I understand all that, but on average each intermediate would have had the same "problems" than land and flying mammals.... So if land and flying mammals overcome these obstacles, why didn't the intermediates?

least live in very dry environments.

Of all the thousands of intermediate organisms , I am pretty sure some lived in dry and more less optimal environments .... So where are these fossil? (I don't know is a valid answer)

 

[leroy]

Click here Punctuated Equilibrium

Are you affirming PE?

 

[leroy]

It doesn’t matter. Creationism isn’t science. It’s not relevant.

If it is not relevant why bring it to the table? ...... You said that creationist can't explain....bla bla bla

What you think is irrelevant. We only care what experts report. Just get science right and stop pretending you can form any opinion about it.

Granted, if you quote an expert disagreeing with any of my comments you should trust the expert ..... But you won't provide such quotes are you ?


As far as I can judge
Sometimes fossils help evolution (transitional fossil , no chimeras etc)

And

Sometimes they harm evolution (big gaps out of place fossils etc)


I don't see a clear win for the TOE

 

[Pogo]

I understand all that, but on average each intermediate would have had the same "problems" than land and flying mammals.... So if land and flying mammals overcome these obstacles, why didn't the intermediates?


Of all the thousands of intermediate organisms , I am pretty sure some lived in dry and more less optimal environments .... So where are these fossil? (I don't know is a valid answer)

You didn't even explore the link I gave you, Here is a converted image so you don't have to do anything but read.

 

[Pogo]

Are you affirming PE?

Do you not know what it is and how it fits into the ToE?