What does the fossil record say?

[outhouse]

you dont have to answer because you cant simple. Isnt it?

If you had found the magic method of creation with no education in science at all you would win the nobel prize. Instead you choose to humiliate yourself going against hundreds of thousands of scientist in the field today that know all the facts.

You have had a bright biologist who is actually a creationist tell you the facts at hand and you choose to ignore them. Isnt this being very dishonest with yourself?

 

[connerb]

all these facts that these great scientists know keep changing

 

[outhouse]

all these facts that these great scientists know keep changing

yes they do. As we learn more, more of the puzzle is getting filled in.

Science evolves in a positive manner

religion is stagnet about science and you only have words that were not ment to be taken literally that were orally handed down around campfires for hundreds of years and then rewritten by atleast 5 different authors to base creation on. [genesis anyway]

 

[newhope101]

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. This happened with knuckle walking, it has happened with smooth then staged evolution, it’s the same with genetics with LUCA being the solid irrefutable evidence of ancestry and now there is solid evidence to refute a LUCA. No matter what you hypothesize, if it is contradicted in time, what was solid evidence gets thrown in the rubbish.

You say these changes are the response to new information and that is fine for you, but not all must see it that way. 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. If you found a human being in the Precambrian I reckon you would work your way around it. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not a convincing record of ancestry. It is a record that for time being suggests God created kinds in stages, that is creative days. Your own Cambrian explosion supports another creative day. So far I do not have a creative problem with the evidence.


If the above reply is too difficult here's another tac to waste your Sunday on:
Please clarify for these researchers and finalise the cladistics for mammals because this is all a problem for evolutionists not me. Clades fit my definition of "kinds' very well...and untill you find a real common ancestor fossil that has been scientifically and genomically tested to be a common ancestor to them all, rather than a hypothesised one, the evidence supports creation of a kind that spread, adapted and changed somewhat but remained the same "kind".

Wiki: The core of Afrotheria consists of the Paenungulata, i.e., elephants, sea cows, and hyraxes, a group with a long history among comparative anatomists.[6][7] Hence, while DNA sequence data have proven essential to infer the existence of Afrotheria as a whole, and while the insectivoran-grade afrotheres (tenrecs, golden moles, sengis) would probably not have been recognized as part of Afrotheria without DNA data, there is some precedent in the comparative anatomical literature for the idea that at least part of this group forms a clade.

Since the 1990s, increasing amounts of molecular and anatomical data have been applied that support the idea that afrotherian mammals are descended from a single common ancestor to the exclusion of other mammals.

Wiki:
Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposonpresence/absence data. The most recent classification systems based on molecular studies have proposed four groups or lineages of placental mammals. Molecular clocks suggest that these clades diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous, but fossils have not yet been found to corroborate this hypothesis.

Mammaliaformes ("mammal-shaped") is a clade that contains the mammals and their closest extinct relatives. Phylogenetically, it is defined as a clade including the most recent common ancestor of Sinoconodon, morganuconodonts, docodonts, Monotremata, Marsupialia, Placentalia, extinct members of this clade, and all of its descendants.[1] The precise phylogeny is disputed due to the scantness of evidence in the fossil record. However, it is thought that the Mammaliaformes were of three major groups:

 

[outhouse]

So here you have it in a nutshell. Even if you found a mammal in the Precambrian period you would simply reconfigure your models

Your playing a what if game that never happened. There have never been precambrian rabbits found.

As a matter of FACT dont you think its beautiful that they have never found a fossil out of place??

Maybe you wish just for your sake that they would so you could be right, WELL MY POINT theres people out there hunting for your rabbits. Guess what! they havnt found them.

 

[outhouse]

You cant pick on evolution and make it false newhope

You dont even have a thought on what could replace it! YOu dont have one decent explanation of the world we live in. Not one that includes sanity but please humor us and let us know how newhopes world exist??????????????????????????????

 

[outhouse]

Precambrian rabbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precambrian rabbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
At one time, "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" rock samples became popular imagery in debates about the validity of the theory of evolution and the scientific field of evolutionary biology. The images are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, when he was asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory and the field of study. Many of his statements about his scientific research were popularized in his lifetime.
Some accounts use this response to rebut claims that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable by any empirical evidence. This followed an assertion by philosopher, Karl Popper, who had proposed that falsifiability is an essential feature of a scientific theory. Popper also expressed doubts about the scientific status of evolutionary theory, although he later concluded that the field of study was genuinely scientific.

 

[painted wolf]

So to you a "creative day" for god is tens of millions of years then?

Bit of a slow worker eh?

Not to mention he needed to practice for hundreds of millions of years prior to that on even more basal critters like sponges, jellies and so on before he got the very difficult job of shrimp.

And if a clade fits your definition of "kind" then dogs and cats are the same "kind" as are humans and chimps.... heck, plants animals and fungi are the same "kind" as we are all the same clade.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Also from the Precambrian Rabbit page: 'Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process. Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in Precambrian strata. Geological records indicate that although the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Many, many millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian.'

So, yes, it would unquestionably throw a serious monkey-wrench into our understanding of Evolution, if found to be genuine, and it would probably lead to a shift of paradigms on the level of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We would have to rethink a LOT about how biology works.

But that doesn't mean that we would arrive at the "God did it" conclusion. This is not a game of either/or and I'm sorry to inform you that "God did it" will probably never be an accepted scientific point of view for one simple reason: It's not science.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fact is, even if we all took Creationism at face value, it would still have no scientific value.

We would still need to research facts as opposed to scripture to find out how living beings actually are.

We would still find out that different species arise due to natural selection.

We would still have to recognize that tales such as that of Noah's Ark simply can't possibly be literally true in any biologically meaningful way.

We would still find out that there is no biological destiny for humanity that sets it apart from
chimps or any other mammal.

We would still be free to believe that God exists and created life, but we would also have to recognize that what some Creationists call "macroevolution" is an actual fact of life, well-known and well-documented as happening routinely, while so-called "kinds" are basically wishful thinking.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The thing is that "God did it" will never be a scientific alternative. It's not a theory, heck, it's not even a hypothesis seeing as it is not falsifiable. It makes no predictions that can be tested for validity and therefore there can never be any evidence to back it up.

ToE on the other hand, as shown above, is both testable and falsifiable, and it has on numerous occasions made predictions that have been tested for validity and it therefore has mountains of evidence backing it up.

Creationists really should stop beating this dead horse...

 

[tumbleweed41]

all these facts that these great scientists know keep changing

Yes, facts change as new objective evidence is found, this is evidence of the non-dogmatic flow of the scientific method.
Or would you rather we were stuck in our ancient understanding of the world?
Wait...isn't that what Creationism is?

 

[newhope101]

all these facts that these great scientists know keep changing

That's correct connerb. Citing a 30% difference in human chimp similaity is a far cry from 94-99% and is what researcher don't speak up about. However this does not worry evolutionists because they will just come up with some new convoluted theory to explain whatever they find. As I said even if they found a human in precambrian times they would still make up some nonsense to cover it that further supported Toe, as Wiki Precambrain Rabbit asserts. Here is the Abstract from some work that PW so eloquently and conveniently dismissed. Pw needs to tell these guys what's what as she no doubt has a simplistic response to the dilemmas.

Here's the abstract re the Y chromo research. Enjoy!
.(Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene contentReceived 3 August; accepted 24 November 2009. Published online 13 January 2010)

The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome1, 2. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only the human Y chromosome has been fully sequenced. Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis3, 4. These theories have been buttressed by partial sequence data from newly emergent plant and animal Y chromosomes5, 6, 7, 8, but they have not been tested in older, highly evolved Y chromosomes such as that of humans.

Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor.

We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour. Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic in the evolution of newly emergent Y chromosomes, wholesale renovation is the paramount theme in the continuing evolution of chimpanzee, human and perhaps other older MSYs.
Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation

The Y chromosome was part of the initial chimpanzee genome draft, and was recognized then as a “clear outlier” in showing low human-chimpanzee sequence similarity (Chimpanzee Genome Consortium 2005). But it wasn’t obvious just how different it was because the relatively short sequencing reads aligned fairly well with the human draft. That comparison also seems not to have included the missing genes (they might have just been missed during sequencing), or duplications. Moreover, the Y chromosome includes a high fraction of repetitive sequence, including long front-to-back, or “palindromic” passages.

Only with very long reads with long overlaps is it possible to straighten out the large-scale sequence, and thereby detect sequence reorganizations and large copy number variants. This kind of intensive sequencing has so far been completed only for chromosome 21 and now the Y chromosome.

 

[Amill]

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.

Don't think I need to say anything here.

There is nothing that can overturn your toe. If you found a human being in the Precambrian I reckon you would work your way around it. Therefore, Toe is not a science it IS a BELIEF system.. a theory….and your fossil evidence is not a convincing record of ancestry. It is a record that for time being suggests God created kinds in stages, that is creative days. Your own Cambrian explosion supports another creative day. So far I do not have a creative problem with the evidence.

Lol so it's a belief system because you "reckon" scientists would find ways around any evidence that demonstrates evolution to be false. Like I said before as well, what areas of science do you trust? Because every field of science has had theories that have failed or been challenged. What theories and scientific hypotheses do you trust? Because I bet we could find some scientists somewhere that are trying to challenge it.

And how does a period of tens of millions of years = support for a creative "day"?

And on the 3rd day God created the trilobites?

 

[newhope101]

Amill coming up with ways to test one's hypothesis by speaking to what would disprove it, is the scientific way. Evos may not like it but it's the way it is.

"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes".

Chimp human comparisons of 99% through to 96% have been thrown up to 'prove' ancestry. Now 30% is cited. Indeed this info re human to mouse comparison and chicken to human comparison in Y chromosome, hugely changes the scene. This is apparent to all apart from those inculcated into the Toe belief system. Evolutionists are so used to inconsistency and nonsensical claims that all this just scootes over the top of your head without going in...Oh just another hiccup that some researcher will deal with by making up some woffle.

The simple truth is mankind must have gotten here somehow given that everyone appears to agree that earth at one time was lifeless. If you do not believe in a creator you obviously need to hold fast to some other belief system and you have found one Toe. Good for you.

In fact the evidence these days strongly supports a biblical creative event. The first 2 creative days making the universe and the earth. The third making the ecology with vegetation. The 4th day fixing up the atmosphere, the 5th day creating life n the sea and birds. On the 6th other animals and finally humans. Sounds like a good plan and fairly well inline with Genesis, considering the restrictions in scientific language at the time.

Researchers have confirmed life began in the sea and we can still see stromolites that are still of the 'kind' stomalites and have not miraculously changed into any other 'kind'. The same goes for eukaryotes and sponges still the same kind from the proterozoic. The same goes for many creatures. Created supposedly squillions of years ago and still here with us..just like one would expect in a creative event. No the sponges did not turn into frogs and the stromalites did not turn into anything else, they were just created, and are still here as evidence.


If you were standing here on earth you probably would have seen a haze and then the materialization of the creation. Now that scientists can clone the making of creatures should not be that hard for someone that knows it all, like God. God uses sciences unknown to us at this time.

Not unlike evos..not having every single answer to every question does not mean any theory is invalid, or so it appears in Toe.

I have no problems really with the current evidence it shows a great creative plan.
Evolutionists are the one's trying to prove all this ancestry and not doing a very good job at it.

 

[painted wolf]

So you expect to find Cambrian pigeons then?
Flying through Cambrian forests? Forests should be found in fossils before bacteria, but we don't see plants until well after animals. They must be hiding with the Cambrian birds and bunnies.

So fish and whales aren't animals? but what about turtles and seals? Are they life in the sea or land?
And "fixing up the atmosphere" is making the sun and moon.... nice woffle.

Not to mention that a "creative day" is tens to hundreds of millions of years long. Days just aren't what they used to be before woffling.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

In fact the evidence these days strongly supports a biblical creative event.

This is a blatant lie, you should be ashamed. we have given you ample time to produce evidence for this and you have shown none.

show us some evidence, wait you have NO evidence at all! we could get rid of chimps all together and still have our ancestory as it stands because chimp sare not our direct ancestor but a cousin.





The rest of your ramblings are not worth a reply due to your lack of education

 

[David M]

Amill coming up with ways to test one's hypothesis by speaking to what would disprove it, is the scientific way. Evos may not like it but it's the way it is.

"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes".

Chimp human comparisons of 99% through to 96% have been thrown up to 'prove' ancestry. Now 30% is cited. Indeed this info re human to mouse comparison and chicken to human comparison in Y chromosome, hugely changes the scene. This is apparent to all apart from those inculcated into the Toe belief system. Evolutionists are so used to inconsistency and nonsensical claims that all this just scootes over the top of your head without going in...Oh just another hiccup that some researcher will deal with by making up some woffle.

If you count different things in different ways you get different numbers, thats your evidence that there is a problem with ToE?

Try posting the % differences between humans, chimps, chickens and mice using the same method before exposing even more of your ignorance on the subject.

30% of the chimp genome may not align with the human genome, which means that 70% does align but only 40% of the mouse genome can be aligned with the human genome. Again chimps are genetically closer to humans than mice.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6915/full/nature01262.html

By the way, chickens don't have a Y chromosome.

 

[Autodidact]

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

No one here disputes it, in fact, we all assume it. That's because evolution is science, and therefore works the way science works, including debate, change, lack of absolute certainty, together with constantly decreasing uncertainty. That's science. So basically, your point, over and over, is that evolution is science. Duh.

 

[Autodidact]

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….
.

A theory does not mean something is hypothetical. Surely after all this time debating science on the internet you have at least mastered the basic terminology? Apparently not. The only reason I can imagine, at this point, is that you're uneducable. Otherwise by now you would understand what a scientific theory is, wouldn't you? I'm sure it's been explained to you a few hundred times, and even you could learn it if you wanted to.

In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

[wiki] The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a theory in this, the scientific sense.

At the same time, evolution (small "e") is a fact. It's kind of like germs. Germs are a fact. The Germ Theory of Disease is a Theory.

Get it?

I would really appreciate it if I didn't have to explain this to you again.

(Actually, I wish I would never have to explain it to anyone again. Talk about boring.)