Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

Not to me or anybody else familiar with earth science.

Here, let me Google that for you (click on link)

See above post.

 

[dad1]

So, you don't have any evidence to support your claim that carbon decayed at a different?

You claim there was radioactive decay at all on earth in the far past? Proof?
What is this rate change strawman?

The evidence that carbon decays at a consistent rate is that it has always decayed at the same rate since we have been looking at it.

Any reason you can't post this??

That's a ludicrous comparison. Since we have been measuring the decay rate of carbon it has never changed and we have found absolutely no indication that it would ever change.

If you go on a 7000 mile train journey, and all you have is the direction of the journey for a 7 mile section, that doesn't mean the train moves in that direction the whole way.

It is pure speculation that at any time in history it decayed at a different rate, unless you can provide some evidence to support your claim.

?? Decayed? Why would anything do that in the former nature at any rate? As of yet, you have not provided anything beyond mere speculation.

I agree, but throughout the time we've been measuring the decay rate, it has never changed.

That says almost noting, it hasn't been very long.

We see it happen every time we look for it. It also lines up with the chemistry.

Show an example and specific?

Here is a pretty good explanation of why carbon 14 undergoes radioactive decay.

It does so because in this state and nature, the laws and forces work that way. Period.

So, 1) we have direct evidence that carbon 14 undergoes radioactive decay

Of course it does..now. Irrelevant to the far past.

and has decayed at the same rate since we were able to measure it,

Irrelevant. Science was not here in Noah's day.

2) we understand why carbon 14 decays at a consistent rate,

In other words we understand the current state and nature. Irrelevant.

and 3) there is absolutely no evidence, none whatsoever, that would even lead us to consider the possibility that carbon 14 would not have decayed millions of years ago at the same rate.

Nor any evidence there was any millions of years ago. Nor any evidence that at the time you mistakenly thnk was millions of years ago, any decay existed at all. Hoo ha

 

[dad1]

Carbon14 analysis is precisely supported by dendrochronology.

Circular. If trees grew fast before this nature and there was no decay then all you have is circular belief.

 

[dad1]

Are you still asking for evidence? Why? What have you done with all of the evidence already presented you apart from ignoring it or dismissing it out of hand?

None was given that even dealt with what state the past was. Focus. You NEED a same state past for decay.

 

[dad1]

A large number of dating systems, such as tree rings, lake sediments, coral layers, and a wide variety of radiometric systems, give consiliant results. That is, their results agree. This has been tested to long before any possible biblical time.

Circular beliefs. You use the SAME premise is each and every dating system. Period. You use the present laws.

It is clear that the main proponents of creationism are con men, making a living by scamming religious rubes. Believing their guff may make one feel special, it does not make one right.

May the best side win, one side is deceived deeply.

 

[dad1]

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..

Correct. If you knew what you were talking about you could explain it. You don't.

 

[dad1]

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.
.

False. Far as we know evolving in the former nature was unlike today and ultra fast. It could be that the living creature evolved even!!?

 

[shmogie]

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.

Not being an expert means that I don't have degree's in these fields. My degree's are in another field. Nevertheless, it DOESN'T mean I haven't studied these area's, and understand the flaws in the theory as well as what it states it proves. The fossil record simply does not support your contention of significant large change between in fauna over however many generations of change you care to name. Amphibians becoming lizards as an example. Where are the series of transitional fossils the theory predicts should be numerous ?

 

[Sapiens]

Circular. If trees grew fast before this nature and there was no decay then all you have is circular belief.

It is not a question of the speed of growth but rather the laying down of annual rings. If you want to make a case for misguided premise that annual tree rings are not yearly ... knock yourself out.

Correct. If you knew what you were talking about you could explain it. You don't.

I'm sure he can explain it and I'm equally sure that you'd bend every effort to not understand it.

False. Far as we know evolving in the former nature was unlike today and ultra fast. It could be that the living creature evolved even!!?

It appears that your entire world view is predicated on denial of uniformitarianism. Please provide some evidence and references for your disesteemed presuppositional conceit.

If you want to actually learn something about the subject, here's an excellent source: https://firesballistic.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/why-evolution-is-true.pdf

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Amphibians becoming lizards as an example. Where are the series of transitional fossils ...

Amphibians to amniotes

 

[shmogie]

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.

Oh please, give me a break. You have seen none of what you spout about. Don't project your ignorance of biology onto me. If I ask a question about something, it doesn't mean I don't know the answer, I want to see what the questioned thinks is the answer. I learned in court to not ask a question I can't answer myself. You show your ignorance because you have failed to keep up with the discussion. There are transitional fossils, and TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. Alleged transitional fossils of fish, are still fish. What you and all the other evolutionary experts here have failed to do is produce that plethora of transitional fossils showing fish turning into amphibians, or anything else. Darwin said the fossil record should be full of them. Do you see, even dimly ? I have my doubts. You pimp a theory, with little or no evidence to support it. Micro vs. macro evolution. Do YOU know the difference ? If no one can witness anything, then how do you prove it's true ? If everyone is dead, tell me, how do you verify anything ? There is certainly more evidence for Christianity than abiogenesis, witnesses, history, vs. nothing

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not being an expert means that I don't have degree's in these fields. My degree's are in another field. Nevertheless, it DOESN'T mean I haven't studied these area's, and understand the flaws in the theory as well as what it states it proves.

The theory has no flaws.

Creationists telling others what they can't understand, don't know, have never taken the trouble to learn, or just can see is not a counterargument. Whatever study you claim for yourself did not educate you on evolutionary science. I strongly suspect that everything that you know on the subject comes from creationist apologetics sites. We've 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

Amphibians becoming lizards as an example. Where are the series of transitional fossils the theory predicts should be numerous ?

The theory makes no such prediction. It doesn't comment on how often creatures fossilize, or at what rate we should expect to discover their fossils. There could well be no record of many transitions, and it would not change the idea that the tree of life evolved over deep time from a single ancestral ancestor due to genetic variation acted upon by natural selection. That's it. The rest is not the theory, but outside the theory, such as the specifics about how the eye evolved or which extinct primates are ancestral and which represent branches that went extinct without leaving survivors rather than having morphed into something in our pedigree..

Now we can add that you don't the theory of biological evolution yet, either.

If you want scientific information on evolution, I suggest you make the effort that those that know it have already made. There are university courses and textbooks available to those that want to learn the science. Even pop science books sold in outlets like Barnes & Noble are a good start.

The path to scientific literacy is long and arduous. Acquiring it takes a prolonged and concerted effort, which requires an interest in the subject at a minimum.

Canvassing strangers on the Internet is not the way to learn evolutionary science or any other science or academic subject.

And it virtually never comes to those who aren't really interested. If you were, you'd already know it.

 

[shmogie]

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.

LOL, dude, you should take your act onto the road ! I guess you got really hurt when I pointed out your knowledge was lacking. Sadly, all of your childish indictments don't apply to me, but I bet they ease the sting a little for you, don't they ? Once again, you have lost the thread. Let me help you. The discussion hasn't been about creationism, or religion. It has been about the lack of evidence for some significant and fundamental claims in the theory of evolution. The flaw in the theory demonstrated by the absence of key transitional fossils in the record. We can discuss transitional fossils all day long within fish, mammals, amphibians or reptiles, but these mean nothing. It must be demonstrated that these transitioned into something different. e.g. a creature that left the sea for land after evolving from a fish. The theory predicts many transitional fossils from a fish to this creature. All I am asking is, Where are they ? or, where are any others showing this significant change in an organism. Do you get it now ? Feel free to produce this evidence, if you can.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If I ask a question about something, it doesn't mean I don't know the answer, I want to see what the questioned thinks is the answer.

That's not credible. We've seen what you know and don't know.

I learned in court to not ask a question I can't answer myself.

I learned to ask questions to seek answers.

Alleged transitional fossils of fish, are still fish.

There you go again.

What you and all the other evolutionary experts here have failed to do is produce that plethora of transitional fossils showing fish turning into amphibians, or anything else.

We have no duty to present anything at all to you. You are free to scour the literature yourself if you actually care. Science is based on what we do know and have seen to date, not what remains to be discovered.

If no one can witness anything, then how do you prove it's true ? If everyone is dead, tell me, how do you verify anything ?

Really? Did your parents have intercourse and conceive you? Did you then grow and develop in the womb? Were you then born"? How will we prove any of that without witnesses? And if they dig up fossils of you some day, they will know that all of that happened. If you don't know how to evaluate evidence properly, your argument about what it shows and does not is not useful.

There is certainly more evidence for Christianity than abiogenesis, witnesses, history, vs. nothing

Nobody is denying that Christianity exists, but there's no evidence that it isn't a false religion. You have no witnesses that Jesus ever lived or uttered a word, just the unsupported claims of anonymous authors in a book that is rife with internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors attributed to an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, and errors of science and history.

LOL, dude, you should take your act onto the road ! I guess you got really hurt when I pointed out your knowledge was lacking. Sadly, all of your childish indictments don't apply to me, but I bet they ease the sting a little for you, don't they ? Once again, you have lost the thread. Let me help you. The discussion hasn't been about creationism, or religion. It has been about the lack of evidence for some significant and fundamental claims in the theory of evolution. The flaw in the theory demonstrated by the absence of key transitional fossils in the record. We can discuss transitional fossils all day long within fish, mammals, amphibians or reptiles, but these mean nothing. It must be demonstrated that these transitioned into something different. e.g. a creature that left the sea for land after evolving from a fish. The theory predicts many transitional fossils from a fish to this creature. All I am asking is, Where are they ? or, where are any others showing this significant change in an organism. Do you get it now ? Feel free to produce this evidence, if you can.

I'm sure that you must know my answer to all of this already. I'm not here to teach you against your will and without your cooperation. I won't engage in the creationist shuffle and the game of fetch that creationists expect others to play for them as they ignore and reject out of hand all that is provided to them at their request. If you were sincere, you'd have your answers already.

 

[shmogie]

The theory has no flaws.

Creationists telling others what they can't understand, don't know, have never taken the trouble to learn, or just can see is not a counterargument. Whatever study you claim for yourself did not educate you on evolutionary science. I strongly suspect that everything that you know on the subject comes from creationist apologetics sites. We've 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



The theory makes no such prediction. It doesn't comment on how often creatures fossilize, or at what rate we should expect to discover their fossils. There could well be no record of many transitions, and it would not change the idea that the tree of life evolved over deep time from a single ancestral ancestor due to genetic variation acted upon by natural selection. That's it. The rest is not the theory, but outside the theory, such as the specifics about how the eye evolved or which extinct primates are ancestral and which represent branches that went extinct without leaving survivors rather than having morphed into something in our pedigree..

Now we can add that you don't the theory of biological evolution yet, either.

If you want scientific information on evolution, I suggest you make the effort that those that know it have already made. There are university courses and textbooks available to those that want to learn the science. Even pop science books sold in outlets like Barnes & Noble are a good start.

The path to scientific literacy is long and arduous. Acquiring it takes a prolonged and concerted effort, which requires an interest in the subject at a minimum.

Canvassing strangers on the Internet is not the way to learn evolutionary science or any other science or academic subject.

And it virtually never comes to those who aren't really interested. If you were, you'd already know it.

LOL ! Have you read Darwin's book ? " On the Origin of Species" ? You seem very ignorant of it. He predicts the existence of these fossils. My college classes when discussing evolution begin here. I think you should to. So, you propose that you believe in a concept that has no evidence to support it. Duh, is'nt that what you accuse religious people of doing ? In one of your other posts you said I didn;'t know what "macro evolution" is. Let me help you, macro and micro evolution are primarily creationist terms, REAL evolutionists don't like to use them. So, you, as one who understands evolution and accepts it, use a creationist term, that evolutionists don't use, to tell me, a creationist that uses the term all the time, that I don't know what it means ! You don't know what you are talking about, but kudo's for shouting your ignorance to show you aren't ignorant. Brass cojone's man

 

[shmogie]

That's not credible. We've seen what you know and don't know.



I learned to ask questions to seek answers.



There you go again.



We have no duty to present anything at all to you. You are free to scour the literature yourself if you actually care. Science is based on what we do know and have seen to date, not what remains to be discovered.



Really? Did your parents have intercourse and conceive you? Did you then grow and develop in the womb? Were you then born"? How will we prove any of that without witnesses? And if they dig up fossils of you some day, they will know that all of that happened. If you don't know how to evaluate evidence properly, your argument about what it shows and does not is not useful.



Nobody is denying that Christianity exists, but there's no evidence that it isn't a false religion. You have no witnesses that Jesus ever lived or uttered a word, just the unsupported claims of anonymous authors in a book that is rife with internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors attributed to an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, and errors of science and history.



I'm sure that you must know my answer to all of this already. I'm not here to teach you against your will and without your cooperation. I won't engage in the creationist shuffle and the game of fetch that creationists expect others to play for them as they ignore and reject out of hand all that is provided to them at their request. If you were sincere, you'd have your answers already.

What you are saying is this " I can't provide the evidence, I am not even sure what he is talking about re a series of transitional fossils, I feel dumb, so I will gracefully bow out by using the tried and true (to evolutionists) tactic of accusing him of being dumb, and back out ". It,s too late though, you should have quit before you put your ignorance of your faith in evolution on display. To their credit, the others know exactly what I am talking about and are still working on the problem.

 

[shmogie]

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


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.[/QUOT

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.

OK, makes sense. However, aren't there many other differences between reptiles and mammals that skeletons can't show ? So then, isn't the skeletal evidence circumstantial ( the legal term meaning the absence of direct evidence, but evidence that COULD lead to a specific conclusion. )

 

[shmogie]

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


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.

Yes, I looked into it, and your example certainly is of transitions within a class. Probably the outer reaches of micro evolution. That still however begs the question, is there evolution beyond this limit that can be demonstrated ? Since the theory proposes from the most simple to the most complex, there has to be transitional fossils literally from a single celled first organism to a human. As Darwin stated, very, very, many of them. Are there extant those documenting changes from class to class, or from a class in one phylum to a class in a more advanced one ? This is ultimately the question. If a series exists for dinosaurs to birds, a series, for example, then my belief structure will have to be re examined. BTW, you probably know this but a group of Canadian taxonomists have re, re classified the alleged flying dinosaur as a bird.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, there are other aspects of reptiles vs. mammals that do not fossilize. For example, it is difficult (but not impossible) to determine whether animals in the past were exothermic or endothermic (cold-blooded or warm-blooded). We don't know details (often) of internal anatomy: it has decayed away. But again, for *modern* species, the bones give a very clear signal. That we find transitions in the skeletons is more than circumstantial evidence that the species were going through large-scale change, with the early stages reptilian and the end stages mammalian. Exactly where the boundary is located is mostly a matter of definition and convenience, not a matter of biology.

Again, the fact that species *do* change is part of what makes rigid boundary lines rather silly. Usually the changes don't happen all at once or even at the same time for different characteristics. So, whether you call a particular fossil a 'mammal-like reptile' or a 'reptile-like mammal' is a matter of convenience. In many cases, both classifications have merit. The boundary is NOT hard and fast in practice.

 

[Polymath257]

Not being an expert means that I don't have degree's in these fields. My degree's are in another field. Nevertheless, it DOESN'T mean I haven't studied these area's, and understand the flaws in the theory as well as what it states it proves. The fossil record simply does not support your contention of significant large change between in fauna over however many generations of change you care to name. Amphibians becoming lizards as an example. Where are the series of transitional fossils the theory predicts should be numerous ?

First, we have to agree what it means to be transitional. How would you define a fossil to be an example of, say, the transition between reptile and mammal? What characteristics do you think it would show?

I ask this because many creationists have a very distorted idea of what it means to be a transitional species. it doesn't mean you have a crocoduck, for example. It means that you have a species with some characteristics of reptiles and some of mammals and some that are intermediate.

And we *do* have many examples of these. The reptile to mammal transition is very well documented. The fish to amphibian is also. When you ask for 'amphibians to lizards', you are being more specific about the reptile than maybe you think: lizards have some very definite characteristics and were *not* the first reptiles. None of the modern classes of reptiles were.

And yes, the fossil record *does* show that there is large scale change in fauna (and flora) over many generations. You simply won't find a modern horse in Miocene strata, for example. You won't find modern elephants either. That they didn't exist 30 million years ago and they do exist now shows large scale change in fauna.

Finally, at the species and genus levels, much evolution happens in small, isolated populations (which is why we see so many finch species in the Galapagos, for example). The problem is that fossilization is fairly rare, so we *don't* expect to see each and every stage of the transitions, especially when they happen in small populations.

So when you claim such transitions should be numerous, you are wrong. We *expect* them to be rare, but to exist. And that is what we see.