What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

These questions:
"Are you for real?

Yes.

Since you are bold enough to argue to the contrary, tell me - who observed the spontaneous generation of life?

No one.

What are the ingredients?

I don't know.

Who put the ingredients together in such a comprehensive manner?

Who knows?

Was abiogenesis happening when was it observed?

It wasn't.

Exactly how long ago was that?

Between 3 and 4.5 billion years.

Was it recorded by anyone?

No.

Can you quote me one prominent biologist who agrees with you?

About what?

What makes you think that the appearance of a fossil tells you how that fossil came to be what it is and where it is?"

Nothing, did I claim it did?

O.K., your turn.

 

[wilsoncole]

Well I don't believe in the Bible so you'll have to provide some other substantiation for your allegation that a Jewish carpenter's son lay rabbi of the 1st century A.C.E. witnessed the creation.

No I don't!
If you sit as a juror and the defendant tells you the truth and you refuse to believe him, can you honestly call that defendant a liar and ask him to manufacture the kind of material that you choose to believe?

Your question was "what are the ingredients", my answer was "mostly carbon" which isn't wrong at all.

Carbon is a chemical element which is unable to come to life by itself. Even if you combine it with all the necessary nucleotides and even a membrane, it still cannot spring to life. Men have tried to do it for years.

What this other gobbledygook you've blathered has to do with my answer I'd need further clarification on.

This "gobbledygook" is the historical information that Louis Pasteur proved, that life only comes from previous life.

In any event it has been blatantly explained to you over and over why the existence of biological evolution in no way hinges on abiogenesis or whether life can only come from life - perhaps you could cite some other sources besides 19th century outdated science opinions or 20th century religious ones.

"Explained" my foot! I see only a feeble attempt to dodge the pressing issue that nothing can evolve without a beginning. If it was indeed a unicellular organism that began evolving, then we have got to know where that first cell came from. You are not going to get answers that fit neatly into your preconceived notions.
You cannot forever dodge the issue.

Even the Bible doesn't say there was ever nothing (even not counting God)

Nor did I.
Bible writers had better sense than that.

Your last statement is a baseless assumption and doesn't logically follow from your previous lines.
Of the two it's the universe which we know for sure actually exists NOW.

You're not actually saying that this universe has always existed - are you?

If material existence can't just have always been then why can a god have always been?

I asked you if the material universe has always existed - didn't I? Are you pretending that you didn't get the point, or is it that you really didn't?
Nothing comes from nothing - right?
If something is here, then it must have come from something prior to itself - right? If there was nothing from time immemorial then nothing will exist, even now - do you agree?

There never was nothing, that would be my explanation - it would even be in line with the Bible which doesn't say there was once nothing.

I repeat, Nor did I. Now, even you have to admit that something was always there and it could not be the universe because that would negate the "Big Bang" and we know that happened. That occurrence did not cause itself because it has been observed to be orderly.
That "something" that was always in existence is God.

God "walked on the face of the deep". The deep what?

You misquote. It was God's Holy Spirit that moved upon the surface of the waters. If you read the context, you would know.

Sorry, you'll need to corroborate Eden's existence with archaeological evidence,

Why? You only asked WHEN Eden was - remember?
“Around 3.8 billion years ago. When was Eden?”

there really shouldn't be any fossil evidence encased in sedimentary rock anywhere if Eden was within the past 10,000 years.

By this, you only raise doubts about the reliability of your dated fossils.

Surely there is archaeological evidence supporting the radiation of modern humans from some spot on Earth?

There is:
“If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.” (Sir Henry Rawlinson The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London, 1855, Vol.　15, page　232)
(All Scripture Is Inspired By God p. 340 Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)

Both the fossil evidence and genetic evidence strongly point to a Homo sapiens origin in S. Africa around 180,000-200,000 years ago.

All the more reason to question the reliability of the dating methods and the presuppositions used to arrive at those conclusions.

I don't remember mentioning a specific species, remind me and I'll answer.

See Reply # 662.

In general all modern species have ancestral species in the fossil record which in turn have ancestral species and the older the strata the fossil comes from the less like the modern form the ancestral one looks until they converge to become ancestral with multiple modern species (as with dogs and bears for example which share ancestral forms)

That is how the theory goes. Preconceptions are not facts and you cannot make the facts fit the theory even though you try very hard.
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
What makes you think that the appearance of a fossil tells you how that fossil came to be what it is and where it is?

The fossil came to be because the species it belonged to existed (duh) what it is is a fossil and species are classifiable (because all of them are related) and you actually are asking where the fossil is? Isn't it where we find it?

I guess you were trying to be cute, but you misunderstand, Sir. I am saying that the appearance of a fossil does not tell how it came to be where it is and does not tell how it came to be what it is.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

I took the liberty to answer them, I'm still waiting for the archaeological evidence pointing to when Eden existed. among other things.

Only you didn't answer them.

 

[Autodidact]

Three choices, wilson:
(1) There has always been life on earth.
(2) There has never been life on earth.
(3) At one time there was not life on earth, and now there is.
Which one do you think is correct?

 

[wilsoncole]

Wilsoncole:
That which has always existed must, therefore, be that which created everything else.

DiestPrimate:
Your last statement is a baseless assumption and doesn't logically follow from your previous lines.

Baseless? It is a logical conclusion!
Where else will all other things come from?

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

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Three choices, wilson:
(1) There has always been life on earth.
(2) There has never been life on earth.
(3) At one time there was not life on earth, and now there is.
Which one do you think is correct?

See Reply # 683.
Your questions are answered by the "Big Bang."
That is all you're going to get.

 

[Autodidact]

See Reply # 683.
Your questions are answered by the "Big Bang."
That is all you're going to get.

My question has nothing to do with the Big Bang, which has to do with the beginnings of the universe. My question has to do with life on earth. Which of these would you agree with:
1. There has always been life on earth.
2. There has never been life on earth.
3. At one time, there was a first living thing on earth.

You know, when you're evasive, your readers justly conclude not only that you're wrong, but that you know you're wrong.

Let me know if you ever want to discuss the subject of this thread--the fossil record.

 

[newhope101]

ad hominem, the battle cry of the creationist.

I don't know why any of us continue to waste our time with you but it should be readily apparent why explaining the existence of the first lifeforms isn't a prerequisite to the existence of evolution as it's been reviewed a gazillian times even just since I've been frequenting these forums. Darwin himself suggested in Origin Of The Species there may have been a few (or one) original form(s) created by God from which all other life evolved.
Exactly. Hence nor should a creationist have to explain how God created kinds. He just did. It is Auto that goes on about this and is so extremely anal about it. You go tell her to get over herself. She is like a broken record and a bad one at that.
And what do you mean by "kind, species or whatever"? Species is defined as a scientific term, I agree with those who've pointed out you need to define 'Kind' since no creationist has. Walt Brown defined 'Kind' as a lifeform which bred true only with its own. OK, what 'Kind' is a mule then? Is it Donkey Kind or Horse Kind? A mule can't breed true, what you say Newhope?
Indeed I have defined KIND just as good as you have defined species and the plethora of definitions of species cited in Wiki "Species". Ihave defined kind according to my beliefs and many others have defined kind according to their beliefs. What goes on is hypocritical evolutionists for some delusional reason demand a higher standard of the definition of kind then they themselves can supply of species.

Wiki Species:
Consequently, any single, universal definition of "species" is necessarily arbitrary. Instead, biologists have proposed a range of definitions; which definition a biologists uses is a pragmatic choice, depending on the particularities of that biologist's research.
Typological species
Morphological species
Biological / Isolation species
Biological / reproductive species
Recognition species
Mate-recognition species
Evolutionary / Darwinian species
Phylogenetic (Cladistic)[verification needed]
Ecological species
Genetic species
Phenetic species
Microspecies
Cohesion species
Cryptic species
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)

We are going to have fun on your KIND thread, believe me, I will for sure!


Here I returned to my post to insert an invite to a new thread I started http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ationists-please-define-kind.html#post2315054 for creationists to come define their term 'Kind' so as not to start another off topic discussion on this thread.
I'll be there fairly soon. I've already played it out but I'll do it again when I have time, just to keep you happy.
Ummm, no. You just brought it up again off topic. No, Auto did, she is really anal.

All you do is use creationist sources that quote mine what they don't make up out of whole cloth, why don't you ever provide direct scientific sources supporting your claims, cuz you can't that's why.
By quote mining do you mean supplying evidence by way of research. Then yes I quote mine. However, my quotes never misrepresent the article. To show you are not a huge liar show me the creationist research I used or the info I misrepresented. You can't. You are just a cheap shot liar. You should try using evidence instead of hot air for a change.

You have alledged that I use creationsist evidence. I'll try to be nice but no there is no nice way of saying it..YOU ARE A LIAR. I can assure you the research on Wiki and other research I put up is definitely not from creationist sites. You're almost not worth a response due to your clear lack of basic knowledge. There is no point being able to discuss alleles and markers and all that crap if you don't even know what's going on these days in the field. You clearly do not.. I have posted loads of evidence. You are just unaware it it really is your very own evolutionary researchers coming up with this stuff....Goose!.
Oh good, more ad hominem. Evolution is the HOW of speciation, as to the HOW of original genesis of life, that's a separate topic. You seem to feel content 'explaining' both with POOF!

What the hell are you talking about. Are you a hypocrite as well? You also only having poofing as your explanation for abiogenesis, and not the topic of this thread.

If you knew anything about RNA regulation you would not have made such a silly statement. What do you mean speciation. Are you talking about a fruitfly having a leg hanging off its head and still being a fruitfly. Or a moth adapting into a different variety but still being a moth. You have theories to explain 'how', no evidence, and many of them are at odds with each other leading to flavour of the month.


Wiki: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.

Seeing as you know all about speciation why don't you go help these leading researchers with their discussions and then explain speciation and HOW HOW HOW it works to us all. You'd have to be a real boofhead and dreamer to believe the final word has been spoken on any of this or anything close to it. Your a bigger dreamer if you think little old you can explain it in under 10,000 words.

Don't forget not that long ago you had solid irrefutable evidence of human ancestry to knuckle walkers. Now with Ardi that evidence resides in the garbage bin of delusionary evidence along with many of your other theories. Congratulations on being the first science ever where inconsistency, change and chaos are put up as evidence for its infalsifiability.

You evolutionists will try any ploy to sideline when you are unable to sucessfully refute a creationist point.
Blowing hot air and false allegations will only fool those that know no better, namely you!

You go provide evidence that refutes my claim that the difference in the human and chimp Y chromosome IS not comparable to a 310 million years of separation. You provide evidence that accelerated evolution is not the current flavour of the month for this unexpected difference. That's how you will successfully refute me.

You cannot and so will not. .....Hot air is fairly brainless but that is all I am expecting in response.

 

[Autodidact]

What do you mean speciation.

No, speciation is the emergence of a new species.

Are you talking about a fruitfly having a leg hanging off its head and still being a fruitfly.

No.

Or a moth adapting into a different variety but still being a moth.

Yes, if it's a new species of moth. There are around 200,000 known species of moths.

You have theories to explain 'how', no evidence, and many of them are at odds with each other leading to flavour of the month.

No, there is no dispute as to the basic mechanisms of speciation.

Wiki: Speciation is the

evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.

Seeing as you know all about speciation why don't you go help these leading researchers with their discussions and then explain speciation and HOW HOW HOW it works to us all.You'd have to be a real boofhead and dreamer to believe the final word has been spoken on any of this or anything close to it.

Obviously. Science never has a final word; it's always subject to revision, expansion, correction. I think at this point this has been explained to you a few dozen times.

Your a bigger dreamer if you think little old you can explain it in under 10,000 words.

It's like this. You start with a species of organism, say, fish. The offspring are all very similar to each other and their parents, but just slightly different, due to sexual reproduction plus mutations. When a change is beneficial to the organism, it tends to survive and reproduce and get passed on. Over time, these changes add up. If part of the breeding population gets separated from the rest, each of the two populations will continue to change gradually over time, until they are so different from each other that they no longer interbreed. At this point, scientists designate one of them a new species. That is the main way new species arise.

You are welcome.

 

[outhouse]

your not one newhope to tell anyone anything about science.

your uneducated and what very very little you do have you twist to meet your own personal needs.

these people should not debate you because a debate requires a person willing to debate and you will not. that and evolution is not up for debate.

to debate you, gives your misinformation air time nothing else. afterall that is your goal.

 

[camanintx]

Carbon is a chemical element which is unable to come to life by itself. Even if you combine it with all the necessary nucleotides and even a membrane, it still cannot spring to life. Men have tried to do it for years.

Oh really?

JCVI: Research / Projects / First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell / Overview

 

[tumbleweed41]

Or a moth adapting into a different variety but still being a moth.

And you're still a primate. Different variety of primate, but still a primate.

That does not make bonobos and humans the same species.

 

[DeistPrimate]

If you sit as a juror and the defendant tells you the truth and you refuse to believe him, can you honestly call that defendant a liar and ask him to manufacture the kind of material that you choose to believe?

"just because I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean I'm lying"
The lawyer character from the movie Strange Brew

Carbon is a chemical element which is unable to come to life by itself. Even if you combine it with all the necessary nucleotides and even a membrane, it still cannot spring to life. Men have tried to do it for years.

So you agree life can't be created by intelligent design then? But seriously even if scientists could bring about a simple living system in this way you'd just say "see it takes an acting intelligence to create life"

This "gobbledygook" is the historical information that Louis Pasteur proved, that life only comes from previous life.

It was Pasteur's hypothesis that life can only come from life, he falsified the old idea of spontaneous generation which held that complex multicellular lifeforms like flies formed full blown out of rotting materials which is more akin to creationist concepts than evolutionary ones. It still remains to be seen if Pasteur's hypothesis is falsified, either way it's moot to a discussion about how the fossil record supports evolution.

"Explained" my foot! I see only a feeble attempt to dodge the pressing issue that nothing can evolve without a beginning. If it was indeed a unicellular organism that began evolving, then we have got to know where that first cell came from. You are not going to get answers that fit neatly into your preconceived notions.
You cannot forever dodge the issue.

I am happy to discuss this on one of the abiogenesis threads with you, but again it's off topic here - this thread is in regards to fossils. According to the fossil record the earliest life on earth ran through a continuum starting with simpler prokaryotes then unicellular eukaryotes then multicellular forms, colony forms being transitional.

You're not actually saying that this universe has always existed - are you?
I asked you if the material universe has always existed - didn't I? Are you pretending that you didn't get the point, or is it that you really didn't?
Nothing comes from nothing - right?
If something is here, then it must have come from something prior to itself - right? If there was nothing from time immemorial then nothing will exist, even now - do you agree?

I honestly don't know if the universe has always existed but it's certainly more possible than the idea of an all knowing all powerful intelligence existing at all. In any event it's off topic.

Now, even you have to admit that something was always there and it could not be the universe because that would negate the "Big Bang" and we know that happened. That occurrence did not cause itself because it has been observed to be orderly. That "something" that was always in existence is God.

Wow you accept the Big Bang having happened but not biological evolution? Wha...? you think it happened 6000 years ago or something. We simply don't know what was or was not before the Big Bang of 14 billion years ago, we know the oscellating theory of the universe as it was held in the 60s is falsified but there are other solid possibilities for a succession of Big Bangs. Perhaps infinity is just that in a muliverse, an infinity of material existence.

I know this is not an idea that sits well in the human mind, I have to confess it doesn't sit well in mine. As a Deist I believe it is God which is the eternal component of existence but in a discussion about how the fossil record supports evolutionary theory the point is moot.

You misquote. It was God's Holy Spirit that moved upon the surface of the waters. If you read the context, you would know.

My point was the Bible states there were "waters" or "the deep" for God to move through, it never says 'He' existed in nothing.

Why? You only asked WHEN Eden was - remember?
“Around 3.8 billion years ago. When was Eden?”

By this, you only raise doubts about the reliability of your dated fossils.

So you don't have any archaeological evidence to cite me pointing to when Eden was in existence? How about Mt. Olympus?

 

[DeistPrimate]

By quote mining do you mean supplying evidence by way of research. Then yes I quote mine. However, my quotes never misrepresent the article. To show you are not a huge liar show me the creationist research I used or the info I misrepresented. You can't. You are just a cheap shot liar. You should try using evidence instead of hot air for a change.[/color]

I'm not quite sure how you utilized the posting quotes aps but I don't have the time to edit in all your quotes and respond to them, most of them are ad hominem anyway, wow what a wonderful Christian you are.

Anyway, I did cite this one section of your response because I'd like to point out "creationist research" consists of (besides outright fabricating and proliferating incorrect information) reading through actual scientific research for any statement they can take out of context to support their pre-suppositions. You've supplied no evidence whatsoever, you've cited a creationist source, itself grossly misrepresenting the facts the way in which has been specifically pointed out by other posters (besides being off topic - can't you creationists read a thread heading?)

How I am the liar in this escapes me.

 

[wilsoncole]

Oh really?

JCVI: Research / Projects / First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell / Overview

Yeah - really.
Note my statement:
"Carbon is a chemical element which is unable to come to life by itself."
I stand by that.
Your link only provides the proof of it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

"Carbon is a chemical element which is unable to come to life by itself."
I stand by that.

Well duh, good thing carbon is not the only element of life.

And this has what to do with evolutionary biology?

 

[camanintx]

Yeah - really.
Note my statement:
"Carbon is a chemical element which is unable to come to life by itself."
I stand by that.
Your link only provides the proof of it.

Which is why I included the second part of your statement.

Even if you combine it with all the necessary nucleotides and even a membrane, it still cannot spring to life.

Combining it with all of the necessary nucleotides and wrapping it in a membrane is exactly what they did.

 

[outhouse]

does anyone else feel like were just feeding trolls?

 

[wilsoncole]

"just because I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean I'm lying"
The lawyer character from the movie Strange Brew

Wow! You really know how to mess things up! Stop watching misleading entertainment.
Truth is that which conforms to fact or reality. If the defendant tells you THE TRUTH, then he certainly knows what he is talking about. Truth is particularly singular. It is YOU who does not know what he is talking about because you refuse to believe the truth. With that state of mind, you could condemn the innocent and increase your guilt.

So you agree life can't be created by intelligent design then?

What in the world gives you that idea? I said MEN cannot do it and it cannot do itself.

But seriously even if scientists could bring about a simple living system in this way you'd just say "see it takes an acting intelligence to create life."

Would that be wrong? Seeing that the life could not create itself?

It was Pasteur's hypothesis that life can only come from life, he falsified the old idea of spontaneous generation which held that complex multicellular lifeforms like flies formed full blown out of rotting materials which is more akin to creationist concepts than evolutionary ones. It still remains to be seen if Pasteur's hypothesis is falsified,

Sir, I know what Pasteur did! After all - it was I who brought up the subject.

either way it's moot to a discussion about how the fossil record supports evolution.

I don’t see it that way. Fossils are evidence of things that once lived - things that could not spring into action all by themselves. A beginning is essential to the development of any living thing. You can’t wish it away.

I am happy to discuss this on one of the abiogenesis threads with you, but again it's off topic here - this thread is in regards to fossils. According to the fossil record the earliest life on earth ran through a continuum starting with simpler prokaryotes then unicellular eukaryotes then multicellular forms, colony forms being transitional.

That, again, is the theory. It has no verifiable support.

I honestly don't know if the universe has always existed

How can you say that if you believe the Big Bang happened?

but it's certainly more possible than the idea of an all knowing all powerful intelligence existing at all.

I guess I’ll have to do it again:
The Big Bang is the beginning of time and the universe - do you agree? Nothing comes from nothing - right? So it logically follows that something pre-existed that occasion. Since the Big Bang appears to be orderly, then that is clear evidence of intelligence.

In any event it's off topic.

The usual cop-out - right?

Wow you accept the Big Bang having happened but not biological evolution? Wha...?

The Big Bang was not biological. Even you should know that.

you think it happened 6000 years ago or something.

Please stop telling me what I think - OK?

We simply don't know what was or was not before the Big Bang of 14 billion years ago, we know the oscellating theory of the universe as it was held in the 60s is falsified but there are other solid possibilities for a succession of Big Bangs. Perhaps infinity is just that in a muliverse, an infinity of material existence.

Anything and everything to enhance you colossal uncertainty.

I know this is not an idea that sits well in the human mind, I have to confess it doesn't sit well in mine. As a Deist I believe it is God which is the eternal component of existence but in a discussion about how the fossil record supports evolutionary theory the point is moot.

That only rests on how you read those fossil records. Clearly an overuse of zeros.

My point was the Bible states there were "waters" or "the deep" for God to move through, it never says 'He' existed in nothing.

I repeat - nor did I. Those waters, as far as is known, were confined to earth and that was long after the Big Bang.

So you don't have any archaeological evidence to cite me pointing to when Eden was in existence? How about Mt. Olympus?

Sir, FYI, unless it is reliably dated, archaeological evidence can only point you to whether - not “when” a place existed.
Reliable dating methods is, so far, elusive.
&#12288;
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

What is your source for this claim of lack of reliable dating, Wilson?

Even a casual google search for "archaeological dating fossils" shows a remarkable variety of independent dating techniques.

Case in point:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/fossil-dating.html?c=y&page=2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/anth42web/DATINGmethods.pdf


The general feel certainly doesn't hint of a lack of reliable dating techniques.