What does the fossil record say?

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf it is irrelevant what I think about when and why mammals appeared. Maybe God created them in stages. Maybe you just haven't found anything older YET. It is irrelevant to the point but seeing as you are a biologist I'll at least reply to your aside. Mammals are by no means an exception to the fact that "commonly held views" change. .

Wiki- Evolution of Mammals. One result of these uncertainties has been a change in the paleontologists' definition of "mammal". For a long time a fossil was considered a mammal if it met the jaw-ear criterion (the jaw joint consists only of the squamosal and dentary; and the articular and the quadrate bones have become the middle ear's malleus and incus). But more recently some paleontologists have usually defined "mammal" as the crown group mammals, i.e. the last common ancestor of monotremes, marsupials and placentals and all of its descendants. The need to address the animals that are more mammal-like than cynodonts, but less closely related to monotremes, marsupials and placentals, lead to erecting the group mammaliformes to accommodate these primitive forms. Mammaliformes is a paraphyletic taxon, representing the early radiation of mammals after the jaw-ear criterion.[23] Although this now appears to be the majority approach, some paleontologists have resisted it because it simply moves most of the problems into the new taxon (a paraphyletic one at that) without solving the original problem; the Mammaliformes includes some animals with "mammalian" jaw joints and some with "reptilian" (articular-to-quadrate) jaw joints; and the newer definition of "mammal" and "mammaliformes" depend on last common ancestors of both groups, which have not yet been found.[21] Despite these objections, this article follows the majority approach and treats most of the cynodonts' Mesozoic descendants as mammaliformes.

Outhouse..To speak to God creating Kinds to give the appearance of evolution, I refer you to my response to PW. It is irrelevant. That evidence, for the moment appears, to show that God wasn't silly enough to create everything all at once. That's for new earth creationists to explain.

Again PW has illustrated yet another little point of decent amongst your researchers..so thanks. It does nothing to refute the fact that you keep on changing what the evidence suggests and the commonly held view. To the contrary it supports it.

All this just is not convincing. When you all get to the bottom of it please let these researchers that have problems know about it.

None of your fossil evidence is really convincing of anything to some. But you're free to go with the flow.

 

[Dan4reason]

Paintedwolf it is irrelevant what I think about when and why mammals appeared. Maybe God created them in stages. Maybe you just haven't found anything older YET. It is irrelevant to the point but seeing as you are a biologist I'll at least reply to your aside. Mammals are by no means an exception to the fact that "commonly held views" change. .

Wiki- Evolution of Mammals. One result of these uncertainties has been a change in the paleontologists' definition of "mammal". For a long time a fossil was considered a mammal if it met the jaw-ear criterion (the jaw joint consists only of the squamosal and dentary; and the articular and the quadrate bones have become the middle ear's malleus and incus). But more recently some paleontologists have usually defined "mammal" as the crown group mammals, i.e. the last common ancestor of monotremes, marsupials and placentals and all of its descendants. The need to address the animals that are more mammal-like than cynodonts, but less closely related to monotremes, marsupials and placentals, lead to erecting the group mammaliformes to accommodate these primitive forms. Mammaliformes is a paraphyletic taxon, representing the early radiation of mammals after the jaw-ear criterion.[23] Although this now appears to be the majority approach, some paleontologists have resisted it because it simply moves most of the problems into the new taxon (a paraphyletic one at that) without solving the original problem; the Mammaliformes includes some animals with "mammalian" jaw joints and some with "reptilian" (articular-to-quadrate) jaw joints; and the newer definition of "mammal" and "mammaliformes" depend on last common ancestors of both groups, which have not yet been found.[21] Despite these objections, this article follows the majority approach and treats most of the cynodonts' Mesozoic descendants as mammaliformes.

Outhouse..To speak to God creating Kinds to give the appearance of evolution, I refer you to my response to PW. It is irrelevant. That evidence, for the moment appears, to show that God wasn't silly enough to create everything all at once. That's for new earth creationists to explain.

Again PW has illustrated yet another little point of decent amongst your researchers..so thanks. It does nothing to refute the fact that you keep on changing what the evidence suggests and the commonly held view. To the contrary it supports it.

All this just is not convincing. When you all get to the bottom of it please let these researchers that have problems know about it.

None of your fossil evidence is really convincing of anything to some. But you're free to go with the flow.

Lucy is a pretty convincing piece of evidence for evolution. You should really check her out.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf it is irrelevant what I think about when and why mammals appeared. Maybe God created them in stages. Maybe you just haven't found anything older YET. It is irrelevant to the point but seeing as you are a biologist I'll at least reply to your aside. Mammals are by no means an exception to the fact that "commonly held views" change. .

Wiki- Evolution of Mammals. One result of these uncertainties has been a change in the paleontologists' definition of "mammal". For a long time a fossil was considered a mammal if it met the jaw-ear criterion (the jaw joint consists only of the squamosal and dentary; and the articular and the quadrate bones have become the middle ear's malleus and incus). But more recently some paleontologists have usually defined "mammal" as the crown group mammals, i.e. the last common ancestor of monotremes, marsupials and placentals and all of its descendants. The need to address the animals that are more mammal-like than cynodonts, but less closely related to monotremes, marsupials and placentals, lead to erecting the group mammaliformes to accommodate these primitive forms. Mammaliformes is a paraphyletic taxon, representing the early radiation of mammals after the jaw-ear criterion.[23] Although this now appears to be the majority approach, some paleontologists have resisted it because it simply moves most of the problems into the new taxon (a paraphyletic one at that) without solving the original problem; the Mammaliformes includes some animals with "mammalian" jaw joints and some with "reptilian" (articular-to-quadrate) jaw joints; and the newer definition of "mammal" and "mammaliformes" depend on last common ancestors of both groups, which have not yet been found.[21] Despite these objections, this article follows the majority approach and treats most of the cynodonts' Mesozoic descendants as mammaliformes.

Outhouse..To speak to God creating Kinds to give the appearance of evolution, I refer you to my response to PW. It is irrelevant. That evidence, for the moment appears, to show that God wasn't silly enough to create everything all at once. That's for new earth creationists to explain.

Again PW has illustrated yet another little point of decent amongst your researchers..so thanks. It does nothing to refute the fact that you keep on changing what the evidence suggests and the commonly held view. To the contrary it supports it.

All this just is not convincing. When you all get to the bottom of it please let these researchers that have problems know about it.

None of your fossil evidence is really convincing of anything to some. But you're free to go with the flow.

I'm just wondering why you are so focused on minor debates in taxonomy when you don't seem to give any deep thought on major questions about creationism?
You say that the fact that the exact placement of a taxa is debated, is good enough reason to call evolution bunk... but then you say that the fact that the fossil record either indicates that God god created "kinds" in a way to trick people into believing evolution , or perhaps he needed to warm up with little things first, is fine.

And I said nothing about mammiforms... just mammals. Why would God make a mammal that lays eggs before making one that has a pouch, before making one that can carry it's young inside itself? Either God is sneaky, not very clever or he used evolution to do the job naturally.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

But you're free to go with the flow.

No im free to follow what ALL the FACTS mainstream scientist have FOUND and PROVED and documented.

there are no real scientist against evolution.

Your not a scientist and your case is weaker then real educated people in this forum without the scientist here stepping in.

If you could show me a fact that makes sense I would change my mind but you havent.

Outhouse..To speak to God creating Kinds to give the appearance of evolution,

Theres not even the smallest bit of a real shred of evidence for a "kind" nothing, nadda, zip. Its kind of fun watching people like you move the bar around on how creation is supposed to work though. I think you have a stronger case if you jumped in a gray area like abiogenesis where little is known about exactly how it all start. But you want to deal with ideas that are easily dismissed with a highschool education in science. name changes do not change the big picture.

Evolution is not up for debate micro and macro. Please try and understand this, your smart enough to take this into a positive place if you choose to do so. Playing with a idea no one follows has got to get old

 

[Autodidact]

Paintedwolf it is irrelevant what I think about when and why mammals appeared. Maybe God created them in stages. Maybe you just haven't found anything older YET. It is irrelevant to the point but seeing as you are a biologist I'll at least reply to your aside. Mammals are by no means an exception to the fact that "commonly held views" change. .

.

Why do you keep making this obvious, irrelevant point over and over? Yes, commonly held scientific views change. They always change. That's science. Science is just one big party of commonly held views changing. What on earth does that have to do with whether evolution is true or not? NOTHING.

Commonly held views on human evolution change. Commonly held views on mammalian evolution change. Commonly held views on the shape of the planet earth change. Commonly held views on the formation of the planets change. Commonly held views on the cause of HIV change. All commonly held views in science change. Duh. That's how science works. Evolution is not the exception, it is the norm.

If you reject ToE because it is constantly changing, then you must perforce reject all of science, because all of it is changing. All the time. That's how science works.

Or what is your point?

 

[newhope101]

Auto..I keep making the point because it appears to get lost in sidewinding. What has ‘not finding mammals pre whatever’ got to do with anything. You suppose an unfound ancestor of ammals, perhaps there were mammals earlier but you have not found them. Evolutionists presuppose a mammalian common ancestor that hasn’t been found. It means nothing other than perhaps one hasn't been found...or are evos the only ones allowed this type of assumption?

Wiki “theMolecular clocks suggest that these clades diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous, but fossils have not yet been” . How could anyone be certain there weren’t mammals earlier? This kind of aside is trying to assert the current data is unchangeable and some sort of definitive proof of evolution as I said until something else is found and the ‘common thinking’ changes.
There is a creature Castorocauda lutrasimilis, ever heard of it?

Fossil overturns ideas of Jurassic mammals
By Randolph E. Schmid, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The discovery of a furry, beaver-like animal that lived at the time of dinosaurs has overturned more than a century of scientific thinking about Jurassic mammals.
Thomas Martin of the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany, said the discovery pushes back the mammal conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years.
For over a century, the stereotype of mammals living in that era has been of tiny, shrew-like creatures scurrying about in the underbrush trying to avoid the giant creatures that dominated the planet, Luo commented.
Now, a research team that included Luo has found that 164 million years ago, the newly discovered mammal with a flat, scaly tail like a beaver, vertebra like an otter and teeth like a seal was swimming in lakes and eating fish.
The new animal is not related to modern beavers or otters but has features similar to them. Thus the researchers named it Castorocauda lutrasimilis.

How on earth are you going to tell what you are looking at concerning mammals with varieties like this that again show similar morphology without ancestry? (if the creature is not a hoax, if they are right, if the bones were put together properly).
　
What has how God made things got to do with anything or side winding about species and the prehuman lineage, or why talk about just the Y chromosome and pointless asides by many.

Go back to when you all believed we came from knucklewalkers. That evidence was convincing at the time. At the time there would surely have been those researchers and creationists that disagreed. Now there is convincing evidence we did not evolve from knuckwalkers. Do you not get why someone may be a little sceptical? I don't think it is that hard to get your head around really.

What is more boring Auto is you changing your mind as to whether you are asserting Toe is factual based on the current evidence or hypothetical as creationists assert. I accept your statement …Toe is a theory, meaning hypothetical. So what?…again NOT THE POINT..not what I’m on about..sidewind….
　
Any hypothesis built on a foundation of straw will easily collapse and that happens throughout Toe all the time. In fact about the only thing evolutionists haven't changed is the agreeance that we evolved from something. The what, how, when, where and why still eludes you with much conflicting evidence eg Y chromosome... with 10 questions arising for every one solved.

The thread is about the fossil evidence being convincing. There is plenty enough to speak to and reasonably assert that……It isn’t convincing. It doesn't matter if you put up this and that and make me refute you back. It is pointless because your current evidence may topple tomorrow if it already hasn't...

 

[LuisDantas]

Auto..I keep making the point because it appears to get lost in sidewinding. What has ‘not finding mammals pre whatever’ got to do with anything. You suppose an unfound ancestor of ammals, perhaps there were mammals earlier but you have not found them. Evolutionists presuppose a mammalian common ancestor that hasn’t been found. It means nothing other than perhaps one hasn't been found...or are evos the only ones allowed this type of assumption?

You can, of course, hope or assume that pretty much anything exists yet hasn't been found yet. But there is a point beyond which it becomes an exercise of grasping at straws.

The fossil record, secondary source as it is, still shows a remarkable variety of examples of speciation. At this point I end up scratching my head and wondering what leads Creationists to obsess so much about it, as if there were some sort of important gap or even all-out contradiction in it. Truth is, there isn't, and there hasn't been for a long time. Yes, the legend of the "missing link" is fairly popular still, yet it is indeed only a legend.

Do "commonly held views" change? Sure. That is true even if you mean scientific knowledge. But the point is that such change is not at all arbitrary and hardly ever turns established knowledge upside-down. After all, the available evidence does exist already and has been consistent with Evolutionary theory for about a whole century. It is quite unreasonable to forget those facts to act as if this were some sort of controversial field; allowing for further improvements and corrections of current knowledge is of course a need, but at this point it takes an over-active imagination to conclude that speciation "may" turn out not to happen. It does happen and the evidence is way beyond any reasonable doubt, and has been so for a LONG time already. No desire to believe otherwise can change that.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is more boring Auto is you changing your mind as to whether you are asserting Toe is factual based on the current evidence or hypothetical as creationists assert. I accept your statement …Toe is a theory, meaning hypothetical.

I'm pretty certain that Auto does not say that the ToE is a theory in that popular (yet misleading) meaning of "hypothesis". She is well aware that it stopped being "only a hypothesis" in the early decades of the XX century at the very latest.

 

[outhouse]

I keep making the point because it appears to get lost in sidewinding.

your the only one going sideways time and time again

how God made things got to do with anything

God didnt make anything.

Go back to when you all believed we came from knucklewalkers. That evidence was convincing at the time

this is YOUR sideways tactic. One way or the other it doesnt change ToE at all. Like most of your banter, it changes nothing.

I have pointed out your sideways creationist tactic of shooting right for a gray area and making it sound like were all lost in darkness and they dont have a clue whats up. This is like a puzzle and guess what the big picture is there and its unchangeable. But correcting the pieces gives us a better picture but it doesnt change the picture. Same goes for all the name stuff you pull. it changes nothing. You either look at the big picture and add or get out of the way and let the proffessionals do there work.

hypothetical as creationists assert

some of the pieces are hypothetical BUT the big picture remains the same.

Toe is a theory, meaning hypothetical

NO it doesnt and you know that, going sideways with facts will not change ToE

THIS is a blatent LIE

that happens throughout Toe all the time

This is a blatent LIE


Your lack of ability to read high school level science and understand or comprehend it properly SHOWS you have no credibility at all. With the blatent lies your pulling I dont think you can ever regain credibility

 

[newhope101]

Outhouse calling someone a liar is not new nor clever. If you are so clever how about at least giving some evidence to back your claims. That may assist in your purported credibility. Although look out, I’ll bet I can find a problem with it, so research it well before posting.

PW.. this thread is about the fossil evidence being convincing, not about my justification re creationist thinking. What commonly goes on here is you evolutionists continue to ask sideline questions in an attempt to find unanswerable questions. Then unjustifiably feel you have won some point. This is a totally mute exercise as neither side of the debate has all the answers and inability to provide scientific responses to every question obviously does not delegate any idea to the rubbish bin as is the case in both Toe and creationism.

The thread asks is the fossil evidence convincing and the info I speak to suggests to me that it is not. If you are convinced and the continual changes do not bother you that’s terrific for you. However to insinuate that someone is somehow lacking in intelligence because they are sceptical is exceptionally biased and narrow minded.

Dan4reason..if you look back we have already been all over Lucy and Ardi and Lluc. You go check them out!

LouisDantas…theoretical science does change and that is why it is theoretical eg big bang, multi dimensions, the universal constant varies throughout the universe etc. Theories on gravity, maths etc dealing with the here and now do not change on a yearly basis, are testable, know what it takes to invalidate the concept, and that is valid science. Any scientific algorithm that uses insertion rates based on probability will always be contentious to me and that is a whole other debate. Likewise something that constantly changes is not proven yet and is theoretical…not fact.

Everyone…Evolution is not valid if there is nothing that disproves it either. No matter what you find or how new evidence challenges the status quo it is absorbed and new hypothesis are constructed to address new information. No matter what you find this is taken as support for toe. Little old me is not the first to address this non scientific stance. Your famous Dawkins has also spoken to it.

Wiki - Precambrian Rabbit.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water."[14] Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify the error(s).[2]
Benton pointed out that, in the short term, scientists often have to accept the existence of competing hypotheses, each of which explains large parts—but not all—of the observed relevant data.[7]

So here you have it in a nutshell. Even if you found a mammal in the Precambrian period you would simply reconfigure your models. You say these changes are the response to new information and that is fine for you, but not all. That is called choice. However if toe, including supportive fossil evidence is scientific then there must be a way to illustrate if it is not valid..and there isn’t!

There is nothing that can overturn your toe. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not convincing.

 

[outhouse]

Everyone…Evolution is not valid if there is nothing that disproves it either.

this is only your opinion.

The DEBATE for EVOLUTION has been over a long time. Evolution observes FACTS

creationist have NO FACTS nor will they ever.


ignoring evidence is still a lie, deal with it if you dont like it

 

[outhouse]

and your fossil evidence is not convincing

logicaly explain the above photo ????

Im the weakest member here in science, but you cant even come close to getting past my small amount of education to prove your myth.

 

[newhope101]

Outhouse calling someone a liar is not new nor clever. If you are so clever how about at least giving some evidence to back your claims. That may assist in your purported credibility. Although look out, I’ll bet I can find a problem with it, so research it well before posting.

PW.. this thread is about the fossil evidence being convincing, not about my justification re creationist thinking. What commonly goes on here is you evolutionists continue to ask sideline questions in an attempt to find unanswerable questions. Then unjustifiably feel you have won some point. This is a totally mute exercise as neither side of the debate has all the answers and inability to provide scientific responses to every question obviously does not delegate any idea to the rubbish bin as is the case in both Toe and creationism.

The thread asks is the fossil evidence convincing and the info I speak to suggests to me that it is not. If you are convinced and the continual changes do not bother you that’s terrific for you. However to insinuate that someone is somehow lacking in intelligence because they are sceptical is exceptionally biased and narrow minded.

Dan4reason..if you look back we have already been all over Lucy and Ardi and Lluc. You go check them out!

LouisDantas…theoretical science does change and that is why it is theoretical eg big bang, multi dimensions, the universal constant varies throughout the universe etc. Theories on gravity, maths etc dealing with the here and now do not change on a yearly basis, are testable, know what it takes to invalidate the concept, and that is valid science. Any scientific algorithm that uses insertion rates based on probability will always be contentious to me and that is a whole other debate. Likewise something that constantly changes is not proven yet and is theoretical…not fact.

Everyone…Evolution is not valid if there is nothing that disproves it either. No matter what you find or how new evidence challenges the status quo it is absorbed and new hypothesis are constructed to address new information. No matter what you find this is taken as support for toe. Little old me is not the first to address this non scientific stance. Your famous Dawkins has also spoken to it.

Wiki - Precambrian Rabbit.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water."[14] Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify the error(s).[2]
Benton pointed out that, in the short term, scientists often have to accept the existence of competing hypotheses, each of which explains large parts—but not all—of the observed relevant data.[7]

So here you have it in a nutshell. Even if you found a mammal in the Precambrian period you would simply reconfigure your models. You say these changes are the response to new information and that is fine for you, but not all. That is called choice. However if toe, including supportive fossil evidence is scientific then there must be a way to illustrate if it is not valid..and there isn’t!

There is nothing that can overturn your toe. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not convincing.

Outhouse (you do know in Aussie land the outhouse is the dunny. I giggle a little when I speak to you, good choice of Avatar)...I cannot see any photo. Is my PC playing up?? In fact outhouse, I also do not have credentials in evolutionary sciences. However, I can adequately speak through the words of your own evolutionary researchers to challenge you. You should try same.

If your photo will not load please direct me to it or explain.. and let's have a chat....

Better still, provide your refute to my point..there is nothing that will disprove Toe..therefore Toe is not subject to a level of scientific veracity that can ever take it from fiction to fact. Toe including, your fossil evidence, will continue to be an ever evolving fantasy. Go.....

 

[outhouse]

If your photo will not load please direct me to it or explain.. and let's have a chat....

its just that photo of all the skulls from chimp to human thats floats around weekly

Toe including, your fossil evidence, will continue to be an ever evolving fantasy

im sorry you feel that way because your alone in a corner.

 

[outhouse]

lets do this,

lets take the big bang and evolution off the table and pretend it didnt happen

WHAT Proof do you now have that creation took place?

And how do YOU explain the illusion of evolution due to all the fossils that mimic evolution idea so closely?

 

[newhope101]

Ok Outhouse..I see your photo now. I have already spoken to this via several directions. Recently, I spoke to the convincing human fossil skulls that purportedly were indesputable evidence of ancestry to knuckle walking apes. Evolutionists could produce the hand and the changes therein also as evidence, at the time. Now there is substantial evidence that we have not evolved from knucklewalkers. I have already posted info on brain size. You are just going over old ground. Bipedalism has been pushed back further and further and then there is Ardi..then there is Lluc,Anoiapithecus brevirostris, 12 million years old with Skull features only comparable to Homo. Again this is old ground and an excellent example of wasting time.

Can you or can you not address the point from my previous post relating to the precambrian fossil?

"Even if you found a mammal in the Precambrian period you would simply reconfigure your models. You say these changes are the response to new information and that is fine for you, but not all. That is called choice. However if toe, including supportive fossil evidence is scientific then there must be a way to illustrate if it is not valid..and there isn’t!
There is nothing that can overturn your toe. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not convincing."

 

[newhope101]

lets do this,

lets take the big bang and evolution off the table and pretend it didnt happen

WHAT Proof do you now have that creation took place?

And how do YOU explain the illusion of evolution due to all the fossils that mimic evolution idea so closely?

What is it about sidewinding that you do not understand. Haven't I just said to PW that your usual tactic to continue to request answers to questions until an unanswerable question is found is no evidence for anything. Toe and the fossil evidence have plenty of unanswerable questions eg.Lluc..Have you not been paying any attention at all. If you have the answers then go tell the researchers that challenge your status quo and tell them what's what.

Many issues remain debatable amongst researchers. That is not news buddy, except to you. The worst is that you will not learn. Have you not heard the evos here acknowledge debate and say this is expected. I'm not wasting my time here doing that. If that is your level of education and you are unable to stay on topic we're done.

Anyone else got something intelligent to add..

"Even if you found a mammal in the Precambrian period you would simply reconfigure your models. You say these changes are the response to new information and that is fine for you, but not all. That is called choice. However if toe, including supportive fossil evidence is scientific then there must be a way to illustrate if it is not valid..and there isn’t!

There is nothing that can overturn your toe. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not convincing."

 

[outhouse]

Ok Outhouse..I see your photo now. I have already spoken to this via several directions. Recently, I spoke to the convincing human fossil skulls that purportedly were indesputable evidence of ancestry to knuckle walking apes. Evolutionists could produce the hand and the changes therein also as evidence, at the time. Now there is substantial evidence that we have not evolved from knucklewalkers. I have already posted info on brain size. You are just going over old ground. Bipedalism has been pushed back further and further and then there is Ardi..then there is Lluc,Anoiapithecus brevirostris, 12 million years old with Skull features only comparable to Homo. Again this is old ground and an excellent example of wasting time.

Can you or can you not address the point from my previous post relating to the precambrian fossil?

"Even if you found a mammal in the Precambrian period you would simply reconfigure your models. You say these changes are the response to new information and that is fine for you, but not all. That is called choice. However if toe, including supportive fossil evidence is scientific then there must be a way to illustrate if it is not valid..and there isn’t!
There is nothing that can overturn your toe. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not convincing."

But again your only talking one species

your not explaining them all.

that isnt even in the homo line up,, can you explain the ones that made it to the holo line up. The smithsoniam has a great site if you search human origins

 

[outhouse]

What is it about sidewinding that you do not understand. Haven't I just said to PW that your usual tactic to continue to request answers to questions until an unanswerable question is found is no evidence for anything. Toe and the fossil evidence have plenty of unanswerable questions eg.Lluc..Have you not been paying any attention at all. If you have the answers then go tell the researchers that challenge your status quo and tell them what's what.

Many issues remain debatable amongst researchers. That is not news buddy, except to you. The worst is that you will not learn. Have you not heard the evos here acknowledge debate and say this is expected. I'm not wasting my time here doing that. If that is your level of education and you are unable to stay on topic we're done.

Anyone else got something intelligent to add..

"Even if you found a mammal in the Precambrian period you would simply reconfigure your models. You say these changes are the response to new information and that is fine for you, but not all. That is called choice. However if toe, including supportive fossil evidence is scientific then there must be a way to illustrate if it is not valid..and there isn’t!

There is nothing that can overturn your toe. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not convincing."

The thing is im giving you two simple questions, and you wont answer.

#1 there is no proof because you cannot prove a myth does not exist.

#2 the reason the fossil evidence mimics evolution is because evolution happened..


Your view is a magic deity we know nothing about said "POOF" and a rabbit pops up

 

[newhope101]

Outhouse:The thing is im giving you two simple questions, and you wont answer.

#1 there is no proof because you cannot prove a myth does not exist.

#2 the reason the fossil evidence mimics evolution is because evolution happened..


Your view is a magic deity we know nothing about said "POOF" and a rabbit pops up



Again what I think of poofing is irrelevant. I do not have the onus of proof re all creationist thinking on me in order to be skeptical of the current fossil evidence re any taxa.

The reason the fossil evidence mimics evolution is because every living creature was not created at the exact same time. Again dates for many hypothesis are pushed further and further back. These Homo fossils could just as easily be ancestors of Lluc's family. There is also a fossil dated as florensiensis that is genetically very different. There is debate in all taxa, and we have referred to it here. Go to Wiki first and have a general look first at least....

Regardless whether or not you agree with me. I do not have to answer your irrelevant questions here in relation to creationism or my version of it...at least not when the topic is about the current fossil evidence being convincing. Your questions are irrelevant and just a sidewinding waste of time...