Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[shmogie]

So, basically no evidence can convince you?

NO, I am not saying that at all. I make no claim to being an expert on skeletons. I don't see how one with four legs and a spine from a non extant creature be used to say it is a reptile or mammal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I do have it, but I have no interest in sharing it. It is intended for a specific audience, and you don't qualify.

LOL Are you serious?

I'll just assume it's BS then.

 

[sayak83]

NO, I am not saying that at all. I make no claim to being an expert on skeletons. I don't see how one with four legs and a spine from a non extant creature be used to say it is a reptile or mammal.

Mammals have distinctive skeletal features that can consistently distinguish them from reptiles. It would be difficult for you to appreciate them without some familiarity regarding skeletal structure and how it can reveal crucial information about the creatures lineage and kinship.

 

[Jose Fly]

Right. Unlike you, I made it very clear I wasn't an expert.

Yet you go around acting like you are, e.g., by making declarations about the fossil record.....something you know very little about.

There exists a comprehensive article on the tactics used by evolutionists in discussion's of this type. Your particular tactic is discussed thoroughly. When an evolutionist can't answer a single or set of questions, they use the tactic of "superior knowledge", they avoid the questions and assert that the questioner isn't knowledgeable enough to ask them.

Exactly what questions do you think I can't answer? I've certainly asked you plenty that you've blown off, and I've even provided you information that you said you would look into but never did.

So for you to say that I'm the one employing some sort of dodging tactic is pretty bizarre.

[Also, if they can throw in a ad hominem, e.g., "you are making yourself look ridiculous", to bolster their superiority, so much the better from their standpoint.

Um, have you been paying attention to the responses you're getting from multiple people here? You are making yourself look ridiculous by trying to debate a subject you know very little about. You can either take my advice and spend some time learning about biology, or you can keep doing what you're doing now. Your choice.

It is noted that you clearly HAVE NOT addressed the issue of the absence of transitional fossil's in any significant number, or the absence of any that are truly significant to your theory/faith. Nice try though

What in th.........? After I provided you with information on the complete fossil record of an entire class of organisms, you say that?

I'll say it again.....it is simply impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh yes, I know how taxonomy works. However, it slides around for specific purposes, and it is an arbitrary human device, not a natural one. You didn't provide any material, no matter, I found what was needed. I asked you a specific question re your chosen creatures,that you conveniently dodged, why don't you answer it?

What in the world do you think I'm dodging?

Why don't you tell me what the record shows about "large scale transitions of new genera and families" and lets see what this information tells us about the alleged smooth flow of creatures from extremely simple to extremely complex, and how they are all connected.

I provided you with exactly that. You said you would look into it, but you never did. And now you say the above? I think we all know what that makes you.

 

[sayak83]

@shmogie

Which groups should each of these animals above fall into?

 

[Polymath257]

Can you tell me about the fossils of these part mammal part reptile creatures, and can you tell me further how they have been deemed part mammal and part reptile ?

Sure. There are a variety of characteristics that *usually* serve to distinguish reptile from mammal skeletons.

For example, mammals uniformly have three bones in the middle ear (hammer, anvil, stirrup). Reptiles never have inner ear bones. Their ears simply have the eardrum on the outside of the skull.

Reptiles also have more bones in their lower jaws than mammals do: mammals have one.

Reptiles have simple teeth that are not differentiated. Mammal teeth are differentiated (there is a difference between, say, molars and incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, etc.).

Reptile shoulders and pelvises only allow attachment of the legs in a splayed out posture: the attachments are on the side. For mammals, the attachments are towards the front, allowing a more upright posture.

In the transitional forms, we have the back bones of the lower jaw getting smaller and, eventually becoming part of the middle ear. We even have examples where the jaw joint is 'double jointed' to allow attachment either above or below to allow for the smaller bones.

The transitional forms initially have undifferentiated teeth. Later examples have two different types. And later forms have the full mammalian variety.

In the transitional forms, the shoulder and pelvic girdles gradually move front the side to allowing attachment in the front.

In the transition, there are characteristics that are intermediate between those of mammals and reptiles.

/E: These are only a few of the differences, by the way. The shape and attachments in the pelvis, for example, are also distinct between modern reptiles and modern mammals. The 'free ribs' in mammals don't appear in reptiles. The attachment of the skull to the vertebral column differs between mammals and reptiles, etc.

 

[McBell]

No. If we comprehend something we can teach it. What's your problem?

moving the goal posts does not help you.

Your claim is that if someone cannot explain something simply enough for you to understand it, they must not understand it themselves.

That is nothing more than the wishful thinking of the ignorant.

 

[McBell]

Yes, I do have it, but I have no interest in sharing it. It is intended for a specific audience, and you don't qualify.

ROTFLMAO

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

" Gaps in the record", there are many of these "gaps". Why ? Where are the long lines of transitional creatures ? How long before these "gaps" show there is no fossil record of them ?

You don't seem to know the first thing about evolution. In the last ten minutes, I have seen you demonstrate that you don't know what a biological class is, what a population is, what a transitional fossil is, what macroevolution is, or what punctuated equilibrium is, and yet, you're arguing with people that do.

You also have no concept of the difference between justified belief and religious faith, and you don't seem to understand what "I am fully justified in believing that there will be an eclipse in the US on April 8, 2024" means. There might be an eclipse visible from Neptune right now. It doesn't require that anybody see it for that to be true.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, basically no evidence can convince you?

Of course not. Have you ever seen one that accepted any evidence provided? Have you seen one that convinced you that he read or understood any provided evidence?

That's the creationist shuffle - feign interest in evidence, ignore it while dismissing it out of hand, then repeat that there is no evidence. Feign an interest in and respect for science despite having no interest in it or knowledge of it, throw in a few references to what has not been seen, found, or explained, and you're good to go.

Of course, not a single word in support of creationism. The strategy is to attack evolution and hope that only creationism is left standing.

Yet I am still waiting for the first creationists to explain why we should abandon a theory that unifies mountains of observations, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found that have never been falsified after over 150 years, and has had technological applications that have improved the human condition, and replace it with an unsupported hypothesis that has produced nothing of value.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@shmogie

Which groups should each of these animals above fall into?

I'm going reptile and mammal for the middle and bottom images based on the orientation of the legs, teeth where visible, and tails.

The top image is either a mammal or may be a transitional form. I can't see the teeth if any, but the head isn't flat, the limbs don't extend laterally, and the tail is relatively short. It also probably had very powerful muscles for mastication judging by the sagittal crest. I think that reptiles don't chew like that - they tear things apart and swallow them.

On the other hand, it seems to have a lot of ribs for a mammal, and it's skull looks a little like this non-mammalian skull:

Edit: Perhaps I should have read polymath's post before answering.

 

[sayak83]

I'm going reptile and mammal for the middle and bottom images based on the orientation of the legs, teeth where visible, and tails.

The top image is either a mammal or may be a transitional form. I can't see the teeth if any, but the head isn't flat, the limbs don't extend laterally, and the tail is relatively short. It also probably had very powerful muscles for mastication judging by the sagittal crest. I think that reptiles don't chew like that - they tear things apart and swallow them.

On the other hand, it seems to have a lot of ribs for a mammal, and it's skull looks a little like this non-mammalian skull:

Edit: Perhaps I should have read polymath's post before answering.

You are correct it's a transitional form from Triassic. They are called dicynodonts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

NO, I am not saying that at all. I make no claim to being an expert on skeletons. I don't see how one with four legs and a spine from a non extant creature be used to say it is a reptile or mammal.

Fossil remains, distorted and dispersed over time, allow a lot of wiggle room, enough to provide proof without question, for Piltdown man, Birds from Dinos, Dogs from wolves, and then throw them all out again where needed.

The picture that has emerged over the last 150 years is that form follows function, as with any design, not direct ancestry as once assumed.

 

[sayak83]

Fossil remains, distorted and dispersed over time, allow a lot of wiggle room, enough to provide proof without question, for Piltdown man, Birds from Dinos, Dogs from wolves, and then throw them all out again where needed.

The picture that has emerged over the last 150 years is that form follows function, as with any design, not direct ancestry as once assumed.

False.

 

[gnostic]

NO, I am not saying that at all. I make no claim to being an expert on skeletons.

That's one of the reasons why I don't consider creationists can make any declaration about fossils, whether it be animals, plants or bacterias, with authority, when they actually never study paleontology and geology before.

I am perplexed by creationists making claims that this or that is wrong about evolution, demand explanations and evidences from those who know a lot more than them, and yet they can wholly believe in a living-breathing adult man can be made from dust, soil or clay.

I find that believing in creation of man from the earth, as not natural, and impossible. You might as well as believe in the ram-headed god Khnum, creating man from clay on a potter's wheel.

If you don't believe in Khnum, then how is it so easy to believe in Genesis 2:7?

Nothing in evolution is supernatural. It is all natural, but it take many generations to find common ancestry between 2 or more species.

Take for instance, the recent Ice Ages (Quaternary Glaciation or Pleistocene Glaciation). While the whole Earth was colder during that period, ice sheets only covered parts of northern Europe, Asia and North America, and pockets of regions of high altitude (eg Swiss Alps, the Andes, Himalayas etc), but many regions were uncovered.

(Source: drawn by Hannes Grobe/AWI, and found in Wikipedia Quaternary Glaciation.)

During this period, the brown bears living in regions covered in ice sheets, needed to adapt to condition or die out. These brown bears began finding mates that were more suited for them icy conditions, such as retaining body fat in their body through heavy diet of fat from sea seals, have fur and hide that are more wind-proof and water-proof, and be able to hunt even in its coldest climate.

Hence, the sister-species, the polar bear began to diverged from the brown bears, around 150,000 years ago.

The polar bears don't need to hibernate like the brown bears; they are active in hunt, even in coldest time. Their white fur is better camouflage in the polar region than the brown fur of their southern cousins. Their fur and their body fat provide better protection in the icy wind and sea water. Their claws and paws are better suited for ice and snow than the brown bears'.

The higher fat contents in their body, not only insulate them from the cold, but also give them greater buoyancy in the icy sea. Some seamen have spotted seeing polar bears swimming in the sea for days, something that the brown bears cannot do.

The thing is the brown bears didn't turn into polar bears, overnight. The changes were gradual, becoming increasingly different, after a number of GENERATIONS.

All this changes are due to Natural Selection. No magic or god-like power requires.

 

[gnostic]

Fossil remains, distorted and dispersed over time, allow a lot of wiggle room, enough to provide proof without question, for Piltdown man, Birds from Dinos, Dogs from wolves, and then throw them all out again where needed.

There have been biologists and paleontologists who were skeptical of the claim of the Piltdown Man very early on, and it has been debunked about half-a-century ago.

That you would continue to use this argument today, show that you have nothing new to say about evolution. The Piltdown Man is old news of forgery.

Do you have something that more recent? No? I didn't think so.

You really should go back to school, Guy.

 

[leibowde84]

Right. Unlike you, I made it very clear I wasn't an expert. There exists a comprehensive article on the tactics used by evolutionists in discussion's of this type. Your particular tactic is discussed thoroughly. When an evolutionist can't answer a single or set of questions, they use the tactic of "superior knowledge", they avoid the questions and assert that the questioner isn't knowledgeable enough to ask them. Also, if they can throw in a ad hominem, e.g., "you are making yourself look ridiculous", to bolster their superiority, so much the better from their standpoint. It is noted that you clearly HAVE NOT addressed the issue of the absence of transitional fossil's in any significant number, or the absence of any that are truly significant to your theory/faith. Nice try though

Can you provide a link for this list? I'd love to take a look.

 

[sayak83]

There have been biologists and paleontologists who were skeptical of the claim of the Piltdown Man very early on, and it has been debunked about half-a-century ago.

That you would continue to use this argument today, show that you have nothing new to say about evolution. The Piltdown Man is old news of forgery.

Do you have something that more recent? No? I didn't think so.

You really should go back to school, Guy.

Don't you worry, Hoyle is coming soon also.

 

[dad1]

Not true. We know why tectonic plates move. They move because they are floating on top of the liquid mantle. The mantle itself moves due to convection currents: hot rock rises, gives off some heat, then falls. This creates vast swirls of moving liquid rock under the crust of the earth, which jostles the plates of crust on top.

Nope. You do not know all that.

Not true. We know why tectonic plates move. They move because they are floating on top of the liquid mantle. The mantle itself moves due to convection currents: hot rock rises, gives off some heat, then falls. This creates vast swirls of moving liquid rock under the crust of the earth, which jostles the plates of crust on top.

Not true. We see that seismic waves in one area behave a certain way at a certain depth.



"

researchers used dynamite explosions to generate seismic waves across the southern part of New Zealand's North Island, which sits above the so-called Pacific Plate. The researchers mapped the waves as they traveled through the plate and then used the data to create what Stern called "the most detailed image yet of an oceanic tectonic plate."





The data showed that the seismic waves slowed abruptly at the base of the plate--which suggests that they must have hit a hidden layer of jelly-like rock,.."

KA-BOOM! Scientists Solve Mystery Of Earth's Tectonic Plates



In other words, when waves do something down where it is unknown, and no one ever has been, we assume it is because of the same reasons a wave would do something here on the surface. I can't share that belief and assumption. Maybe there is more involved down there than you know about here.