What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

quote=wilson;
Only a day ago I wrote this:
"I promise you this: The ToE will collapse with the biggest thud you ever heard.
Financial troubles will lead the way. Just wait."

Autodidact:

Well!
I didn't know about this discussion then, but look at what they are discussing here:
((( 25 Signs of The Coming Financial Collapse}}} - Topix

Do you think this will not happen?
These people obviously think so.

And please take a very good look at the last line of this webpage:

The End of Today’s Economic Systems - Windows Live

What will happen to the ToE WHEN it all comes down?

You just cannot build a high-rise structure without a foundation.
It is bound to collapse.
Who will hold it up - you?

I tell you, those fossils, they are something, aren't they?

 

[outhouse]

They are something and genesis never knew what hit it

 

[Autodidact]

Like say, whale fossils. Now that's fascinating.

 

[Autodidact]

Or say, the thousands of Cambrian fossils in the Burgess Shale. Fascinating.

 

[outhouse]

Show OFF!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wilsoncole]

I tell you, those fossils, they are something, aren't they?

Escapism - very handy, isn't it?

Why evolution does not work!
Comparing physical structure does not prove evolution.
The theory is untested and untestable.
Example:
"Dawkins's problem is not one of reasonable intuition, but one of a lack of testability of his hypothesis. However reasonable it may appear, unless Dawkins is able to test his assumptions to see if in fact "verted" is better than "inverted" retinal construction for the needs of the human, this hypothesis of his remains untested and therefore unsupported by the scientific method. Beyond this problem, even if he were to prove scientifically that a verted retina is in fact more reasonable for human vision, this still would not scientifically disprove design. As previously described, proving flaws in design according to a personal understanding or need does not disprove the hypothesis that this flawed design was none-the-less designed.

Since a designer has not been excluded by this argument of Dawkins, the naturalistic theory of evolution is not an automatic default. However true the theory of evolution might be, it is not supported scientifically without testability. This is what evolutionists need to provide and this is exactly what is lacking. The strength of design theory rests, not in its ability to show perfection in design, but in its ability to point toward the statistical improbability of a naturalistic method to explain the complexity of life that is evident in such structures as the human eye. Supposed flaws do not eliminate this statistical challenge to evolutionary theories."

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

 

[DeistPrimate]

Escapism - very handy, isn't it?

Why evolution does not work!
Comparing physical structure does not prove evolution.
The theory is untested and untestable.
Example:
"Dawkins's problem is not one of reasonable intuition, but one of a lack of testability of his hypothesis. However reasonable it may appear, unless Dawkins is able to test his assumptions to see if in fact "verted" is better than "inverted" retinal construction for the needs of the human, this hypothesis of his remains untested and therefore unsupported by the scientific method. Beyond this problem, even if he were to prove scientifically that a verted retina is in fact more reasonable for human vision, this still would not scientifically disprove design. As previously described, proving flaws in design according to a personal understanding or need does not disprove the hypothesis that this flawed design was none-the-less designed.

Since a designer has not been excluded by this argument of Dawkins, the naturalistic theory of evolution is not an automatic default. However true the theory of evolution might be, it is not supported scientifically without testability. This is what evolutionists need to provide and this is exactly what is lacking. The strength of design theory rests, not in its ability to show perfection in design, but in its ability to point toward the statistical improbability of a naturalistic method to explain the complexity of life that is evident in such structures as the human eye. Supposed flaws do not eliminate this statistical challenge to evolutionary theories."

[URL="http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html"]http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html[/URL]

I started a new thread appropriate to a discussion of this off topic posting, see
arguments from complexity

 

[Autodidact]

Escapism - very handy, isn't it?

Why evolution does not work!
Comparing physical structure does not prove evolution.
The theory is untested and untestable.
Example:
"Dawkins's problem is not one of reasonable intuition, but one of a lack of testability of his hypothesis. However reasonable it may appear, unless Dawkins is able to test his assumptions to see if in fact "verted" is better than "inverted" retinal construction for the needs of the human, this hypothesis of his remains untested and therefore unsupported by the scientific method. Beyond this problem, even if he were to prove scientifically that a verted retina is in fact more reasonable for human vision, this still would not scientifically disprove design. As previously described, proving flaws in design according to a personal understanding or need does not disprove the hypothesis that this flawed design was none-the-less designed.

Since a designer has not been excluded by this argument of Dawkins, the naturalistic theory of evolution is not an automatic default. However true the theory of evolution might be, it is not supported scientifically without testability. This is what evolutionists need to provide and this is exactly what is lacking. The strength of design theory rests, not in its ability to show perfection in design, but in its ability to point toward the statistical improbability of a naturalistic method to explain the complexity of life that is evident in such structures as the human eye. Supposed flaws do not eliminate this statistical challenge to evolutionary theories."

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

I think it's interesting how when you look at FOSSILS, they support ToE every time, literally, millions of correct predictions. Say, for example, Tiktaalik. Now that's a cool fossil. Using ToE, the researchers were able to predict where they would find it. After enduring challenging conditions for two years, persisting because of their confidence in their prediction, they did find it. And it's one of the most outstanding contributions to paleontology ever made.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Autodidact you gots some awesome illustrations, thanks for sharing.

 

[newhope101]

I think it's interesting how when you look at FOSSILS, they support ToE every time, literally, millions of correct predictions. Say, for example, Tiktaalik. Now that's a cool fossil. Using ToE, the researchers were able to predict where they would find it. After enduring challenging conditions for two years, persisting because of their confidence in their prediction, they did find it. And it's one of the most outstanding contributions to paleontology ever made.

As I have said many times Autodidact your head is buried and you are absolutely not up to date with your own research. That's why you think everyone is a liar. Most lay people here know heaps more than you. I can't believe you quoted this crap as evidence. The same goes for the skulls. Your researchers can't tell the difference between a gorilla ancestor or a human ancestor as illustrated by the lovely LUCY.

Here's flavour of the month....
Wiki Tetrapod
The first tetrapods are thought to have evolved in coastal and brackish marine environments, and in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.[15] Formerly, the timing was thought to be towards the end of the Devonian. In 2010, this belief was challenged by the discovery of the oldest known tetrapod tracks, preserved in marine tidal flat sediments of the southern coast of Laurasia, now Świętokrzyskie (Holy Cross) Mountains of Poland. They were made during the Eifelian stage of the Middle Devonian. The tracks are dated to about 395 million years ago, 18 million years earlier than the oldest known tetrapod body fossils.[16] Some tracks show digits, indicating that the animal had the ability to walk on land. Additionally, the tracks show that the animal was capable of thrusting its arms and legs forward. This type of motion would have been impossible in tetrapodomorphs such as Tiktaalik. The animal that produced the tracks is estimated to have been up to 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) long with footpads up to 26 centimetres (10 in) wide, although most tracks are only 15 centimetres (5.9 in) wide.[17]

 

[micrurus]

As I have said many times Autodidact your head is buried and you are absolutely not up to date with your own research. That's why you think everyone is a liar. Most lay people here know heaps more than you. I can't believe you quoted this crap as evidence. The same goes for the skulls. Your researchers can't tell the difference between a gorilla ancestor or a human ancestor as illustrated by the lovely LUCY.

Here's flavour of the month....
Wiki Tetrapod
The first tetrapods are thought to have evolved in coastal and brackish marine environments, and in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.[15] Formerly, the timing was thought to be towards the end of the Devonian. In 2010, this belief was challenged by the discovery of the oldest known tetrapod tracks, preserved in marine tidal flat sediments of the southern coast of Laurasia, now Świętokrzyskie (Holy Cross) Mountains of Poland. They were made during the Eifelian stage of the Middle Devonian. The tracks are dated to about 395 million years ago, 18 million years earlier than the oldest known tetrapod body fossils.[16] Some tracks show digits, indicating that the animal had the ability to walk on land. Additionally, the tracks show that the animal was capable of thrusting its arms and legs forward. This type of motion would have been impossible in tetrapodomorphs such as Tiktaalik. The animal that produced the tracks is estimated to have been up to 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) long with footpads up to 26 centimetres (10 in) wide, although most tracks are only 15 centimetres (5.9 in) wide.[17]

are you even able to give an arguement without copy-pasting a wikipediapage?

 

[newhope101]

They are something and genesis never knew what hit it

Is this the skull line up from when humans were directly decendant from knucklewalkers? Well that was rubbbish. Have these boofheads reused the same skulls?

Also don't forget your researchers have found Anoipithecus whose facial features are only comparable to the Homo line, yet lived 12myo and is NOT in our ancestry. All your skulls could be anything from gorrilla, chimp ancestors, Llucs ancestors, anything at all. Putting them up as human ancestors is yet another example of clutching at straws.

Wiki:
The discoverers describe Anoiapithecus brevirostris as a hominoid (superfamily Hominoidea) in the Dryopithecine tribe. They believe that it has more modern traits then the Kenyapithecines from which Kenyapithecus wickeri from Kenya brings fragmentary information. The African specimens are considered a sister taxon to the hominids, and 2 million year younger European specimens must be from after the time that these two groups split. This means that hominids may have evolved in Europe.
The name comes from the Anoia River region in Catalonia, where the fossil was found. It has been given the nickname Lluc (since it is a male individual). The name Lluc is the Catalan form of Luke, which in Latin suggests "light" and this discovery enlighted our early evolution[2]
The modern anatomical features that characterized the family Hominidae visible in Lluc's fossil among others are: unique facial pattern for hominoids, nasal aperture wide at the base, high cheek bone, deep palate.[1]

 

[micrurus]

I guess not...

 

[camanintx]

Also don't forget your researchers have found Anoipithecus whose facial features are only comparable to the Homo line, yet lived 12myo and is NOT in our ancestry.

Try quoting from the actual research instead:

Discussion​

Despite its autapomorphic facial morphology,​

​

​

​

A. brevirostris retains primitive stem-hominoid features (1, 6–8), such as low-crowned teeth (especially the P3 and canines), cheek teeth with flaring labial and lingual walls, short canine roots converging toward the midline, heteromorphic upper premolar cusps, and a frontal sinus that invades the glabella and the frontal squama. These features, like the autapomorphic facial pattern, are not phylogenetically informative (1, 9). However, A. brevirostris shares an array of significant features with both Middle Miocene afropithecids (here included within the Kenyapithecinae) and Middle to Late Miocene hominids (see SI Text and​

Table S1​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

for further details on the systematics used in this paper). These features are lacking in Early Miocene proconsulids (1, 2, 6–8, 10) and can be hence interpreted as derived features that might reflect a phylogenetic link between kenyapithecines and stem Eurasian hominids (Fig. 4).​

While anoipithecus adds much to what we know about early hominid evolution, it is nothing like modern humans. Now if you could just produce that pre-cambrian rabbit fossil.

 

[outhouse]

 

[Autodidact]

As I have said many times Autodidact your head is buried and you are absolutely not up to date with your own research. That's why you think everyone is a liar. Most lay people here know heaps more than you. I can't believe you quoted this crap as evidence. The same goes for the skulls. Your researchers can't tell the difference between a gorilla ancestor or a human ancestor as illustrated by the lovely LUCY.

Here's flavour of the month....
Wiki Tetrapod
The first tetrapods are thought to have evolved in coastal and brackish marine environments, and in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.[15] Formerly, the timing was thought to be towards the end of the Devonian. In 2010, this belief was challenged by the discovery of the oldest known tetrapod tracks, preserved in marine tidal flat sediments of the southern coast of Laurasia, now Świętokrzyskie (Holy Cross) Mountains of Poland. They were made during the Eifelian stage of the Middle Devonian. The tracks are dated to about 395 million years ago, 18 million years earlier than the oldest known tetrapod body fossils.[16] Some tracks show digits, indicating that the animal had the ability to walk on land. Additionally, the tracks show that the animal was capable of thrusting its arms and legs forward. This type of motion would have been impossible in tetrapodomorphs such as Tiktaalik. The animal that produced the tracks is estimated to have been up to 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) long with footpads up to 26 centimetres (10 in) wide, although most tracks are only 15 centimetres (5.9 in) wide.[17]

I'm sorry, I missed your point, if any. What is it? That someone found some tracks not from Tiktaalik? That Tiktaalik is not a fossil, or not a tetrapod, or not interesting, or what?

Are you denying that life started in the ocean, and only eventually emerged onto land?

 

[Autodidact]

Is this the skull line up from when humans were directly decendant from knucklewalkers? Well that was rubbbish. Have these boofheads reused the same skulls?

Also don't forget your researchers have found Anoipithecus whose facial features are only comparable to the Homo line, yet lived 12myo and is NOT in our ancestry. All your skulls could be anything from gorrilla, chimp ancestors, Llucs ancestors, anything at all. Putting them up as human ancestors is yet another example of clutching at straws.

Wiki:
The discoverers describe Anoiapithecus brevirostris as a hominoid (superfamily Hominoidea) in the Dryopithecine tribe. They believe that it has more modern traits then the Kenyapithecines from which Kenyapithecus wickeri from Kenya brings fragmentary information. The African specimens are considered a sister taxon to the hominids, and 2 million year younger European specimens must be from after the time that these two groups split. This means that hominids may have evolved in Europe.
The name comes from the Anoia River region in Catalonia, where the fossil was found. It has been given the nickname Lluc (since it is a male individual). The name Lluc is the Catalan form of Luke, which in Latin suggests "light" and this discovery enlighted our early evolution[2]
The modern anatomical features that characterized the family Hominidae visible in Lluc's fossil among others are: unique facial pattern for hominoids, nasal aperture wide at the base, high cheek bone, deep palate.[1]

Once again, I miss your point, and fail to see the relevance of your quote. Other than calling prominent scientists who devote their passionate brilliance and their lives to advancing human knowledge, "boofheads," what are you driving at? That humans are not hominids? That it is not difficult to tell which hominid skulls are human? Or what?

 

[DeistPrimate]

are you even able to give an arguement without copy-pasting a wikipediapage?

No kidding. They don't even allow Wikipedia as a legit source for kids' research papers at the secondary education level.

 

[micrurus]

No kidding. They don't even allow Wikipedia as a legit source for kids' research papers at the secondary education level.

atleast kids try to delete the hyperlinks so that its not so obvious. :super:

 

[tumbleweed41]

Escapism - very handy, isn't it?

Why evolution does not work!
Comparing physical structure does not prove evolution.
The theory is untested and untestable.
Example:
"Dawkins's problem is not one of reasonable intuition, but one of a lack of testability of his hypothesis. However reasonable it may appear, unless Dawkins is able to test his assumptions to see if in fact "verted" is better than "inverted" retinal construction for the needs of the human, this hypothesis of his remains untested and therefore unsupported by the scientific method. Beyond this problem, even if he were to prove scientifically that a verted retina is in fact more reasonable for human vision, this still would not scientifically disprove design. As previously described, proving flaws in design according to a personal understanding or need does not disprove the hypothesis that this flawed design was none-the-less designed.

Since a designer has not been excluded by this argument of Dawkins, the naturalistic theory of evolution is not an automatic default. However true the theory of evolution might be, it is not supported scientifically without testability. This is what evolutionists need to provide and this is exactly what is lacking. The strength of design theory rests, not in its ability to show perfection in design, but in its ability to point toward the statistical improbability of a naturalistic method to explain the complexity of life that is evident in such structures as the human eye. Supposed flaws do not eliminate this statistical challenge to evolutionary theories."

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

What the good Doctor fails to mention is that the evolution of the eye is in perfect harmony with biological evolution. Biologists have been able to predicatively test what would be found in differing stages of eye development, and verify them.
When he falls back on the "magical poofing" of intelligent design, he leaves the realm of science and is delving into supernatural mumbo jumbo. And his argument rests on the unprovable, untestable, and unfalsifiable premise of "goddidit".
Like many of his ilk, he works harder to discredit biology, and failing miserably, than in presenting actual evidence of ID.
Not surprising, since there is absolutely no objective evidence in support of ID.

But back to the topic of the Fossil Record.....