Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Looncall]

Circular beliefs. You use the SAME premise is each and every dating system. Period. You use the present laws.
May the best side win, one side is deceived deeply.

So all these independent phenomena changed in just the right way to look like they hadn't?

Har-har. Pull the other one, it has bells on it! The desperation of creationists has become riotously funny.

 

[Polymath257]

So all these independent phenomena changed in just the right way to look like they hadn't?

Har-har. Pull the other one, it has bells on it! The desperation of creationists has become riotously funny.

I see it more as sad.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Ah a request, one of my favorite atheists!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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 ?

The 'experts' believed in Piltdown man, canals on mars, phrenology, global cooling/warming (whichever you prefer), classical physics, while the 'ignorant masses ' knew they were cobblers all along

nothing like a little peer pressure review to disseminate myopic dogma.

Being an 'expert' is simply a label, stating that your personal opinion cannot be officially challenged, the antithesis of the scientific method.

 

[shmogie]

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.

I don't claim that they should be numerous, Darwin did. Yes Darwins finches in the Galapogos islands are classic examples of micro evolution. Adaption to the environment within a species. The issue of the rigidity of geological strata, and thus the fossils found within them is complicated, and there is a lot of apparent mixing of the strata and / or fossils. E.g. fossils from alleged different era's supposedly millions of years apart, found together. The strata doesn't seem to be as consistently layered as some propose. Further, there are examples of fossilized trees being vertical in two strata at the same time, supposedly millions of years apart. I don't see it as absolute as many do.

 

[shmogie]

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.

I agree totally, species do change in relation to their environment. The issue is whether they change beyond a species to another species. Creationists use the term type, rather than the terms of common classification. Again, this is a man made concept, that nature doesn't always agree with. A type may be a four legged animal, a carnivore, that is warm blooded and gives birth to live young. Or, it could be a four legged creature that is cold blooded, lays eggs, breathes oxygen from the air, yet enters the sea to feed on sea weed. ( Darwins shore lizards in the Galapogos)

 

[shmogie]

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.

He did mention two other examples

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Of course the evidence is circumstantial. When we're looking into any event from pre-history, all the evidence for it will be circumstantial. But as we know from geology, archaeology, genetics, and many other fields of science, just because we're dealing with circumstantial evidence doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions. If we couldn't, then we'd have to acquit everyone who committed crimes for which there were no eye witnesses.

Yes, I looked into it, and your example certainly is of transitions within a class. Probably the outer reaches of micro evolution.

Where in the world did you get the idea that microevolution is evolution within a taxonomic class?

Also, if you believe microevolution is evolution within a class, why do you keep asking for transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals, and fish and amphibians? They're all within the class Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and terrestrial vertebrates), so according to what you posted above those would be merely microevolution, correct?

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.

Why? Isn't that just microevolution (according to your made-up definitions)?

And to be honest with you, the way you've dodged my questions while at the same time accusing me of dodging......something, I'm hardly inclined to go through the effort of looking up, posting, and explaining any scientific information for you. You've made it quite clear that you're not asking questions in good faith and from genuine curiosity, but instead are asking them as a sort of "stump the evolutionist" game, so that whatever we post you'll just make up some silly excuse to wave it away (e.g., calling evolution within a class "microevolution).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes Darwins finches in the Galapogos islands are classic examples of micro evolution. Adaption to the environment within a species.

Finches comprise family Fringillidae, not a single species.

The Carduelinae subfamily of finches contains 183 species divided into 49 genera Finch - Wikipedia

You can review that list of genera and species here: Carduelinae - Wikipedia

Another branch of the family of finches is the smaller subfamily Fringillinae, which contains four species of finches: Fringilla coelebs, Fringilla polatzeki, Fringilla teydea, Fringilla montifringilla.

The last subfamily, the Euphoniinae, contains over thirty species of finches arranged into two extant genuses.

And that, is what creationists call macroevolution.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree totally, species do change in relation to their environment. The issue is whether they change beyond a species to another species. Creationists use the term type, rather than the terms of common classification. Again, this is a man made concept, that nature doesn't always agree with. A type may be a four legged animal, a carnivore, that is warm blooded and gives birth to live young. Or, it could be a four legged creature that is cold blooded, lays eggs, breathes oxygen from the air, yet enters the sea to feed on sea weed. ( Darwins shore lizards in the Galapogos)

And clearly such changes have happened. There were no primates 100 million years ago. Now there are. They came from somewhere. There were no canines or felines 40 million years ago and there are now. There were no modern horses even a few million years ago, but there are now. But there *were* horse-like mammals. So where do you think the horses came from? Or the primates? or the felids if not from the species that *were* around prior to them showing up?

The problem is that the 'kind' or 'type' of creationists is *way* too variable. Are all mammals a common type? Why or why not? Are all butterflies? All bacteria?

The thing is, that to account what what we see in the fossil record, the changes in the 'types' has to be macro-evolution by anyone's standards. The changes from one era to the next are just that large in many cases (not all--some species stay fairly stable).

And this was gone over a couple of hundred years ago. The first people to study paleontology *expected* to verify the Biblical account. But the observations simply do not fit (and didn't even very early in the studies0. So, they initially proposed 'Catastrophism' where there were multiple 'catastrophes' like the Biblical flood to explain the variety and changes in the species over time. But even that didn't fit the evidence:too many different 'catastrophies' were required with contradictory properties. Eventually, even before Darwin, it was realized that species change gradually over time. All Darwin did was present a possible mechanism for such change.

Eventually, maybe, the creationists will catch up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Yes, and strict limits on adaptation are not just something we see in the fossil record, but also in direct experimentation- (bacteria still being bacteria, dogs still dogs, fruit flies still fruit flies- no matter the evolutionary pressure applied)

More importantly though is the math, the most objective measure. A limited capacity for adaptation is a supported design feature of most functional products (including this forum software) that you can think of, but this logically can not function as a comprehensive creative design mechanism.

This could not have been understood within the Victorian age model Dawinism was conceived in. But neither physics or life is granted a waiver for this paradox

 

[leibowde84]

You claim there was radioactive decay at all on earth in the far past? Proof?

OK, let's just start with this. All radioactive material has a decay rate because radioactive material expels energy, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus, the radioactivity of said material decreases, or "decays", over time. There is no way around it. Radioactive material always will, no matter what, have some kind of a positive decay rate ... always has, always will. We understand why it decays, and it is a necessary consequence of the passage of time.

 

[dad1]

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.

A tree growing in weeks that had rings could not have annual rings. If you think you can prove that the present state existed when they grew, knock yourself out.

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

If you can't, and we don't see anyone else doing it...you lose.

It appears that your entire world view is predicated on denial of uniformitarianism.

It appears that your entire world view is predicated on claiming there was godless uniformitarianism.

Please provide some evidence and references for your disesteemed presuppositional conceit.

I offer the evidence that no one can prove your same state past. Science only assumed one.

If you want to actually learn something about the subject, here's an excellent source:

Feel free to post in your own words some point from your silly link.

 

[dad1]

So all these independent phenomena changed in just the right way to look like they hadn't?.

Only the belief that all the phenomena was created in a present state that also existed in the past underlies your unsupportable 'dating' scheme.

 

[dad1]

OK, let's just start with this. All radioactive material has a decay rate because radioactive material expels energy, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Yes, in this present state, it does. Now prove that the daughter isotopes were created by present state energy? No one questions the fact that decay goes on at a known rate now.

Thus, the radioactivity of said material decreases, or "decays", over time.

It does as long as this present set of laws or nature exists. The only question is how long was that?

There is no way around it. Radioactive material always will, no matter what, have some kind of a positive decay rate ... always has, always will.

Only in THIS state! There is a way around it soon as we lose this state.

We understand why it decays, and it is a necessary consequence of the passage of time.

Only in this nature does anything decay and does so over so much time. If daughter material was already here and was not a result of decay, then it can'r be used for dating.

 

[Looncall]

Only the belief that all the phenomena was created in a present state that also existed in the past underlies your unsupportable 'dating' scheme.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. Hey, it must be a creationist!

Our observations of objects laid down in the remote past conform to what must be expected based on current knowledge. Many independent dating systems give good agreement. I cannot see a better way of showing that things worked in the past as they do in the present.

Hey creationists! It's not good enough to attack a single dating method, you have to invalidate them all. Or, maybe, you could just admit that your ideas are false, as an honest person would do.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, in this present state, it does. Now prove that the daughter isotopes were created by present state energy? No one questions the fact that decay goes on at a known rate now.

It does as long as this present set of laws or nature exists. The only question is how long was that?

Only in THIS state! There is a way around it soon as we lose this state.

Only in this nature does anything decay and does so over so much time. If daughter material was already here and was not a result of decay, then it can'r be used for dating.

So, two quick questions.

1. What is "present state energy" that you refer to?
2. What evidence is there that the laws of nature were different at any point throughout history? Why would you jump to the conclusion that they were without any evidence suggesting it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Only in this nature does anything decay and does so over so much time.

Prove it.

 

[dad1]

Our observations of objects laid down in the remote past conform to what must be expected based on current knowledge.

Your religious projections you deceitfully call observations tell us only how you insist on believing things.

Many independent dating systems give good agreement.

There ARE no independent systems! The ONE system you use willy nilly on all evidences is BELIEF in a same state past.

I cannot see a better way of showing that things worked in the past as they do in the present.

Obviously someone who claims a same state past but cannot prove one would think like that. Don't blame us.

 

[dad1]

Prove it.

Easy to do, we watch it decay now. You did not watch it in Noah's day.