Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok, in Noah's day the bible records trees growing in weeks, and man living 1000 years. I assume the nature and laws at the time were different It is not like that today! In THAT time, evolution had to be rapid also, because we know about when the flood was, and all species had to come from the kinds on the ark! So evolving was rapid in that day also. There is reason to suspect that man could not slowly decay away after death and leave fossil remains either. From dust..to dust we went at that time probably. No fossils expected from man. Not till later, when THIS state or nature started. So the fossils we do see are only from that time.

The millions of years claim is also based on believing that the same laws always applied, such as radioactive decay. If there was none in the former state, then the ratios of isotopes we see now were NOT caused by radioactive decay! (except the bit that did come from decay in the last 4300 years since this state started.)

You're making a believer out of me.

From Monte Python's Holy Grail, scene 7:

Sir Bedevere: "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."

King Arthur: "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes"​

 

[shmogie]

Are you going to retract your claim about the decay rates?

No. I showed decay rates for some materials vary, which is what I said happened.

 

[shmogie]

You quote him and then completely misunderstand his point. He was NOT arguing that there is no evidence for evolution. Quite the contrary.[/QUO I don't misunderstand his point, nor did I draw any conclusions from what he said, I simply quoted what he said. His words speak for themselves.

 

[shmogie]

And yet you ignore the fact that there are transitions between higher taxa. And *that* is the macro-evolution everyone seems to be harping about. The transitions between *species* don't show up as often in the fossil record, but they are the ones that can be verified today: we have witnessed changes in species.

There are a few interpreted as transitional species. However, as Darwin, and modern evolutionists have stated, these fossils showing the progression of species from one to another should be everywhere in the fossil record, they are rare. Speculating that they exist, when they don't, is just empty speculation. you are saying that the theory in which I have vested my faith says that they must exist, therefore I believe they did.

Recognize it isn't me speaking, these are prominent evolutionists saying these fossils don't exist. I agree there are variations in species.

Another point I would like you to address. Evolution is about genetic variation, correct ?

A simple bacteria might have 500 genes, a human, 21,000.Please tell me what the mechanism is for the increasing the number of genes. Not variation within existing genes, but the natural creation of NEW genes

 

[Polymath257]

There are a few interpreted as transitional species. However, as Darwin, and modern evolutionists have stated, these fossils showing the progression of species from one to another should be everywhere in the fossil record, they are rare. Speculating that they exist, when they don't, is just empty speculation. you are saying that the theory in which I have vested my faith says that they must exist, therefore I believe they did.

Recognize it isn't me speaking, these are prominent evolutionists saying these fossils don't exist. I agree there are variations in species.

Another point I would like you to address. Evolution is about genetic variation, correct ?

A simple bacteria might have 500 genes, a human, 21,000.Please tell me what the mechanism is for the increasing the number of genes. Not variation within existing genes, but the natural creation of NEW genes

Duplication of genes is actually pretty common, including even duplication of whole chromosomes (this is very common in plants, by the way). After duplication, the genes can mutate and thereby evolve separately. This leads to the families of related proteins we observe, like the globins (myoglogin, hemoglobin, etc), the serine proteases, etc.

 

[shmogie]

Guess what? Everything we know today started off as something we didn't know before. We didn't learn it all from positing that some god did it and giving up. We learned it all by observing, testing, repeating, verifying and correcting. I.e. Science!

So then, faith in science, no matter it fails, is your faith, no problem. You project to the future and believe science will explain the currently unexplained, and then you accept that as a promissory note, already paid, that it is explained. Well, Christ said faith could move mountains, so I guess you are entitled to your very unique faith

 

[Polymath257]

No. I showed decay rates for some materials vary, which is what I said happened.

No, the claim was shown to be wrong. Subsequent studies showed the claims were the result of lab-based variances, not variances in the decay rates. In particular, the observations seem to be correlated to the annual change in radon levels in the labs.

You also claimed the variances in the decay rates put the dates in doubt. That is not the case. Even if those variances were correct, the dates would not be in doubt.

So, once again, are you going to retract your claims?

 

[shmogie]

Now you're just lying.


Ah, the last refuge of the elementary school student......"I'm right and you know it!"


Except as I've shown, there are examples of species-species transitions in the fossil record, and we've directly observed the evolution of new species in real time. You waving your arms, stamping your feet, and shouting "Nuh uh" doesn't change that reality.


Sheesh.....what are you, 5 years old?


Try and keep up. You claimed that there are no transitional fossils between species. That claim has been falsified.


Color me skeptical that we'll ever hear from you again on that data.

Well, you ought to tell these prominent evolutionists what you have discovered, because they say you are wrong. I have 12 pages of quotations on this subject, from evolutionists, everything from mis identifying species to a strong weakness in the fossil record of these transitional forms. I ask again, should I believe you or they ? Do you want more of these statements from them ? How about observations from such books as "Darwin's Doubt" and "Darwins Black Box" ? Or, do you simply ignore scientists that don't agree with your world view ?

I make no pretense of being professionally trained in science, so I look to experts, you apparently consider yourself an expert. but you have no weight in your conflict with these experts, evolutionists, or not

 

[shmogie]

No, the claim was shown to be wrong. Subsequent studies showed the claims were the result of lab-based variances, not variances in the decay rates. In particular, the observations seem to be correlated to the annual change in radon levels in the labs.

You also claimed the variances in the decay rates put the dates in doubt. That is not the case. Even if those variances were correct, the dates would not be in doubt.

So, once again, are you going to retract your claims?

No, I didn't contend that the possibly variance in decay rates makes dating wrong, I speculated it might be a possibility. Regardless, c 14 dating is plausible for a tiny period of time that life is alleged to have existed on earth. So to me, it is a minor issue. If the studies I posted were wrong, they were wrong, no problem

 

[shmogie]

That makes no sense since he's an "evolutionist". How in the world could you miss his context is beyond me. Maybe a hint: he was talking about Darwin and the time period shortly after him.

He is an evolutionist, right so far. NO, you are the one missing the context. He was agreeing with a number of very prominent evolutionists of today. Even honest evolutionists are capable of pointing weaknesses in the theory. Unlike those hanger on, untrained, unstudied evolutionists who are terrified to consider any possible flaw in their faith. BTW, what Darwin stated on the issue 150+ years ago still applies today, according to these prominent evolutionists.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, you ought to tell these prominent evolutionists what you have discovered, because they say you are wrong. I have 12 pages of quotations on this subject, from evolutionists, everything from mis identifying species to a strong weakness in the fossil record of these transitional forms. I ask again, should I believe you or they ?

It's a common mistake among creationists to think that quotes trump data. The fact remains, transitional fossils not only exist, but are quite abundant and your denialism and quote mining doesn't change that.

How about observations from such books as "Darwin's Doubt" and "Darwins Black Box" ? Or, do you simply ignore scientists that don't agree with your world view ?

I've read them both.

I make no pretense of being professionally trained in science, so I look to experts, you apparently consider yourself an expert. but you have no weight in your conflict with these experts, evolutionists, or not

Funny how it never even occurs to you that whoever you copied those quotes from is deliberately misrepresenting their authors' views.

So when are you going to get back to us on the fossil record of the foraminifera that shows gradual Darwinian evolution in great detail, including multiple species-species transitions and ancestor-descendant relationships? Or was your "I'll look into it" just a diversion tactic?

 

[Jose Fly]

So, once again, are you going to retract your claims?

Ok, that made me laugh out loud...........

 

[Polymath257]

No, I didn't contend that the possibly variance in decay rates makes dating wrong, I speculated it might be a possibility. Regardless, c 14 dating is plausible for a tiny period of time that life is alleged to have existed on earth. So to me, it is a minor issue. If the studies I posted were wrong, they were wrong, no problem

Wow.

No, C14 dating doesn't work for the full length of time life has existed on Earth. With a half-life of around 5900 years, it is only good for about 50,000 years.

OTHER dating methods are used for older samples. And, if anything, their results are more reliable, even within 50,000 years because they don't rely on calibration to account for variances in production in the upper atmosphere.

Again, why do creationists only seem to be aware of C14 dating?

 

[shmogie]

It's a common mistake among creationists to think that quotes trump data. The fact remains, transitional fossils not only exist, but are quite abundant and your denialism and quote mining doesn't change that.


I've read them both.


Funny how it never even occurs to you that whoever you copied those quotes from is deliberately misrepresenting their authors' views.

So when are you going to get back to us on the fossil record of the foraminifera that shows gradual Darwinian evolution in great detail, including multiple species-species transitions and ancestor-descendant relationships? Or was your "I'll look into it" just a diversion tactic?

No diversion tactic, I will in time. How can a quotation from an expert on a particular subject "mis represent their views" ?The quotations are clear, concise and are accurate. It seems to me that if what they said misrepresents their views, then your problem is with them, not me. Maybe it is cumbent

 

[Polymath257]

No, I didn't contend that the possibly variance in decay rates makes dating wrong, I speculated it might be a possibility. Regardless, c 14 dating is plausible for a tiny period of time that life is alleged to have existed on earth. So to me, it is a minor issue. If the studies I posted were wrong, they were wrong, no problem

OK, so you now agree that the dating methods are accurate?

So we can dispense with the 6000 year old Earth and accept the ages in billions of years? That's a start.

 

[Polymath257]

No diversion tactic, I will in time. How can a quotation from an expert on a particular subject "mis represent their views" ?The quotations are clear, concise and are accurate. It seems to me that if what they said misrepresents their views, then your problem is with them, not me. Maybe it is cumbent

And when they later point out that the quotes were taken out of context and do NOT represent their views, either before or after, why do you continue to claim they held those views?

 

[shmogie]

It's a common mistake among creationists to think that quotes trump data. The fact remains, transitional fossils not only exist, but are quite abundant and your denialism and quote mining doesn't change that.


I've read them both.


Funny how it never even occurs to you that whoever you copied those quotes from is deliberately misrepresenting their authors' views.

So when are you going to get back to us on the fossil record of the foraminifera that shows gradual Darwinian evolution in great detail, including multiple species-species transitions and ancestor-descendant relationships? Or was your "I'll look into it" just a diversion tactic?

No diversion tactic, I will in time. How can a quotation from an expert on a particular subject "mis represent their views" ?The quotations are clear, concise and are accurate. It seems to me that if what they said misrepresents their views, then your problem is with them, not me. Maybe it is cumbent

sorry !, continuing; upon you to present their views
Sorry, continuing; upon you to demonstrate what their real views are

 

[shmogie]

And when they later point out that the quotes were taken out of context and do NOT represent their views, either before or after, why do you continue to claim they held those views?

I simple statement " they don't really believe this" doesn't represent their views, where is the proof that they mis spoke. ?
Saying that in one case that the scientist speaking was parroting Darwin, when I can';t find that qualification is evidence of nothing as well. If they really don't believe what they said, don't you think someone who believes that should prove it ? Without doing that, the statements stand

 

[sayak83]

" A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and biology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more darwinian than it is. This probably comes from oversimplification of secondary sources, low level textbooks, semi popular articles and so on. Also there probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, they have not been found. Yet optimism dies hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." Dr. David Raup, Paleontologist, University of Chicago. Science, vol. 213, p. 289

This is from a 1979 article from field museum of natural history bulletin. The amount of evidence for transitional fossils have increased so much in the last 38 years that no paleontologist today says such things... as would be evident in any review paper on the topic that is more recent.

"No wonder Paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen, assiduous collecting at cliff faces yields zig zags, minor oscillations, and very occasionally, slight accumulations of change, over millions of years, a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.

" When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with s bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere. Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, this is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist trying to learn something of evolution" Dr. Eldridge, " Reinventing Darwin; The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory" 1995, p.95

Again quite an old quote. Elridge and Gould were trying to establish the idea that evolutionary theory predicts a punctuated pattern of evolution rather than a seamless change of one form to another. Literally thousands of transitional fossils are known, but arising of features occurs in a jerky modular way. This basic argument for punctuated equilibrium has been confirmed by the observation of gene complexes and how they evolve under natural selection. Once again one needs to look at post 2000 books and review articles to see how patterns predicted by evolutionary genetics are confirmed by transitional fossils.

" The number of intermediate varieties,m which formerly existed, must be truly enormous, why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of these intermediate links ? Geology certainly does not show any such finely graduated organ chain ; and this, perhaps, is the most serious and obvious objection which can be urged against the theory." Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species" 1856, Masterpiece of science edition, 1958, p. 261. 150 years later the case has NOT significantly changed

Things have changed in 160 years. You know what? ask for transitional forms between any animal group (with bones or shells) and I will provide you with several.

" The extreme rarity of evidence for evolution in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches, the rest is inference. However reasonable, is not based upon the evidence of fossils" Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University

Another quote from 1980. This is Gould in 1983 himself demolishing your claims.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape�s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?


What has changed since then.. a veritable flood of transitional fossils making such things no longer rare.

You should read entire books (preferably up to date) from evolutionary biologists instead of collecting old misleading quotes from creationist websites.

 

[shmogie]

Wow.

No, C14 dating doesn't work for the full length of time life has existed on Earth. With a half-life of around 5900 years, it is only good for about 50,000 years.

OTHER dating methods are used for older samples. And, if anything, their results are more reliable, even within 50,000 years because they don't rely on calibration to account for variances in production in the upper atmosphere.

Again, why do creationists only seem to be aware of C14 dating?

I can only speak for myself. I have spent little time looking at these forms of dating re paleontology. I have another serious interest, archaeology, where c 14 dating is prominent, whether it be a campfire of Neanderthals, or a partial manuscript found in Egypt.