What does the fossil record say?

[waitasec]

consider:
Wildlife and Habitat Conservation News: Elephants Evolve Smaller Tusks Due to Poaching





i had to

 

[wilsoncole]

Scientific laws, like theories, are only truthful if they describe what we have already observed and make predictions about the results of future observations. Since Lönnig's claims have not been accepted by any other geneticists, I seriously doubt it's veracity.

What are his claims?



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[fantome profane]

2. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?"

We find incomplete fossils all the time. In fact most of the fossils we have found are incomplete. So logically these must have come from incomplete animals. :yes:

 

[wilsoncole]

Ok, let's put it this way: Pick any evolutionary lineage alleged by scientists to exist, and we'll examine the data to see if there are indeed any examples of intermediate fossil specimens.

Oh - I see!
Load the dices in your favor!
Examine data prepared by those very same scientists who make the allegation.

Get real!

Looking for individual "examples" will never do. Your claims would have to be borne out by a preponderance of the evidence.
If the story of evolution is true and it really took billions of years for life-forms to evolve in an advancing manner, the fossil record of the earth should replete with billions of specimens in various stages of transformation.
Yet they are never found.
Now I expect you to furnish some silly excuse as to why they are entirely missing.

There are no "evolutionary lineages."



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Without any other evidence to the contrary, yes that would be enough.

Without eyewitnesses, a confession, DNA evidence and the like, you got no case.
People could be rendered unconscious, saturated with victim's blood, have the weapon placed in the hand, carried and placed near the body, only to wake up in those compromising circumstances.

If you don't think so then I hope you never serve on a jury (except mine if I ever need one)

You don't have to worry about that! I don't believe in sitting in judgment of any human being.

Like your example, creationists expect us to simply ignore the evidence we have without producing any evidence to the contrary.

You have just proved that you are quite willing to swallow phony evidence and arrive at wrong conclusions.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[waitasec]

If the story of evolution is true and it really took billions of years for life-forms to evolve in an advancing manner, the fossil record of the earth should replete with billions of specimens in various stages of transformation.
Yet they are never found.
Now I expect you to furnish some silly excuse as to why they are entirely missing.

:biglaugh:

who's lying?

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.


Since Darwin's time, the fossil record has been pushed back to between 2.3 and 3.5 billion years before the present.[13] Most of these Precambrian fossils are microscopic bacteria or microfossils. However, macroscopic fossils are now known from the late Proterozoic. The Ediacara biota (also called Vendian biota) dating from 575 million years ago collectively constitutes a richly diverse assembly of early multicellular eukaryotes.
The fossil record and faunal succession form the basis of the science of biostratigraphy or determining the age of rocks based on the fossils they contain. For the first 150 years of geology, biostratigraphy and superposition were the only means for determining the relative age of rocks. The geologic time scale was developed based on the relative ages of rock strata as determined by the early paleontologists and stratigraphers.
Since the early years of the twentieth century, absolute dating methods, such as radiometric dating (including potassium/argon, argon/argon, uranium series, and, for very recent fossils, radiocarbon dating) have been used to verify the relative ages obtained by fossils and to provide absolute ages for many fossils. Radiometric dating has shown that the earliest known stromatolites are over 3.4 billion years old. Various dating methods have been used and are used today depending on local geology and context, and while there is some variance in the results from these dating methods, nearly all of them provide evidence for a very old Earth, approximately 4.6 billion years.
Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wilsoncole]

We find incomplete fossils all the time. In fact most of the fossils we have found are incomplete. So logically these must have come from incomplete animals.

I see a disagreement here!
You should try to keep up!
As one of you asked: "What's an Incomplete animal?"
Extra bones would make it more than complete.
By "incomplete," do you mean parts missing, bones or parts whose function or failure to function led to the death of the animal?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[waitasec]

a refusal to pay attention to the facts is not a disagreement...
:ignore:

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh - I see!
Load the dices in your favor!
Examine data prepared by those very same scientists who make the allegation.

If you can provide examples of creationists finding, describing and publishing fossil finds in the scientific literature, by all means we can examine those as well.

If not, we can still make this work. You provide an alleged evolutionary lineage and before we look at the data, we'll discuss and agree on characteristics that a specimen must exhibit in order to be an intermediate. Once we've agreed on what would constitute a "transitional fossil" for that specific lineage, we'll look at the data to see if any qualify.

 

[fantome profane]

As one of you asked: "What's an Incomplete animal?"

One of me? How many of me are there?

 

[wilsoncole]

who's lying?

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.


Since Darwin's time, the fossil record has been pushed back to between 2.3 and 3.5 billion years before the present.[13] Most of these Precambrian fossils are microscopic bacteria or microfossils. However, macroscopic fossils are now known from the late Proterozoic. The Ediacara biota (also called Vendian biota) dating from 575 million years ago collectively constitutes a richly diverse assembly of early multicellular eukaryotes.
The fossil record and faunal succession form the basis of the science of biostratigraphy or determining the age of rocks based on the fossils they contain. For the first 150 years of geology, biostratigraphy and superposition were the only means for determining the relative age of rocks. The geologic time scale was developed based on the relative ages of rock strata as determined by the early paleontologists and stratigraphers.
Since the early years of the twentieth century, absolute dating methods, such as radiometric dating (including potassium/argon, argon/argon, uranium series, and, for very recent fossils, radiocarbon dating) have been used to verify the relative ages obtained by fossils and to provide absolute ages for many fossils. Radiometric dating has shown that the earliest known stromatolites are over 3.4 billion years old. Various dating methods have been used and are used today depending on local geology and context, and while there is some variance in the results from these dating methods, nearly all of them provide evidence for a very old Earth, approximately 4.6 billion years.
Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This information is ridiculous! There is no way you can prove those stated ages. "Absolute dating" is fiction! The purely hypothetical geolologic column's time-scale has been proven to be most unreliable and a joke because it is based on uniformatarianism. I can cast a pall of doubt on the reliability of your dating methods.
You want me to do that?

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:
“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life.
Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states:
“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
(Reasoning p. 123 published by JWs)

Tell me how things have changed and what has been proved since these pubs.
Still - the fossils necessary to prove your case have not been found


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

If you can provide examples of creationists finding, describing and publishing fossil finds in the scientific literature, by all means we can examine those as well.

Oh! I see!
Load the dices in your favor.
"Scientific Literature," printed and controlled by the very same scientists who make the claims.
Get real!

If not, we can still make this work. You provide an alleged evolutionary lineage and before we look at the data, we'll discuss and agree on characteristics that a specimen must exhibit in order to be an intermediate. Once we've agreed on what would constitute a "transitional fossil" for that specific lineage, we'll look at the data to see if any qualify.

There are no "evolutionary lineages!"

"To bridge the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have had to undergo a radical change. In general, fish receive sound through their bodies, but most toads and frogs have eardrums. Tongues would also have to change. No fish has an extendable tongue, but amphibians such as toads do. Amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink, since they have a membrane they pass over their eyeballs, keeping them clean."

Unbridgeable gaps indeed!

"Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water.
Says the book The Fishes:
&#8220;It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely.&#8221;

No real link has been found between amphibian and fish.

"David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth &#8220;because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other.&#8221; (Creation p. 72, 73 published by JWs)


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh! I see!
Load the dices in your favor.
"Scientific Literature," printed and controlled by the very same scientists who make the claims.
Get real!
There are no "evolutionary lineages!"

Again, I'm perfectly willing to examine specimens found, described, and published by creationists.

But if you're going to automatically exclude any specimens described in the scientific journals without even considering them, aren't you guilty of "loading the dice in your favor"?

Also, I'm specifically referring to "alleged evolutionary lineages", so there's no need to keep saying "there are no lineages" over and over.

"To bridge the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have had to undergo a radical change. In general, fish receive sound through their bodies, but most toads and frogs have eardrums. Tongues would also have to change. No fish has an extendable tongue, but amphibians such as toads do. Amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink, since they have a membrane they pass over their eyeballs, keeping them clean.

Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water.
Says the book The Fishes:
“It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely.”

David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth “because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other.” (Creation p. 72, 73 published by JWs)

So shall we begin with the alleged fish-amphibian transition?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Talk about your stupid questions. That life on Earth started at some point is a fact. How life got started, whether through abiogenesis or creation would be a theory. Neither of which have any bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

"How life got started, whether through abiogenesis or creation would be a".....hypothesis

......

 

[camanintx]

What are his claims?

That Recurrent Variation is a law of nature. Duh!

Without eyewitnesses, a confession, DNA evidence and the like, you got no case.
People could be rendered unconscious, saturated with victim's blood, have the weapon placed in the hand, carried and placed near the body, only to wake up in those compromising circumstances.

All of which would be considered evidence to the contrary, wouldn't it? If there were no evidence of any other people who could have drugged the suspect or murdered the victim, then the fact that the suspect was holding the knife and covered with the victims blood would be adequate to prove guilt, even without eyewitnesses, confessions or the like.

You have just proved that you are quite willing to swallow phony evidence and arrive at wrong conclusions.

No, the only thing proven here is that you are selective as to what evidence you base your conclusions on.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The fossil record does not show changes in basic animal types.

Nice try.
Why are you avoiding the question?

Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence that humanity, life and the Earth are the creation of a supernatural being?

 

[waitasec]

This information is ridiculous! There is no way you can prove those stated ages. "Absolute dating" is fiction! The purely hypothetical geolologic column's time-scale has been proven to be most unreliable and a joke because it is based on uniformatarianism.

Argon
Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can cast a pall of doubt on the reliability of your dating methods.
You want me to do that?

by all means...

 

[painted wolf]

Varve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wa:do

 

[Amill]

"Think of the words, not the man.

If you don't want a person's qualifications and background to affect the credibility of their statements, why on earth did you take the time to tell us that he was an engineer? Why go out of your way to give us that info if it doesn't mean anything?

 

[wilsoncole]

Talk about your stupid questions. That life on Earth started at some point is a fact. How life got started, whether through abiogenesis or creation would be a theory. Neither of which have any bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

That's what you hope! But your escape hatch is tightly closed!
The bearing lies on the fact that evolution cannot commence nor proceed without life.
It will always come back to this.
Nobody can climb a ladder from halfway up. NOBODY!
Theory or not, since you reject direct creation, abiogenesis is your ONLY alternative to account for the origin of life. This is admitted by some of your staunchest advocates of evolution.
Do you have another?
Now - the question is not so stupid after all.
You're going to have to face it.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson