What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

What science do you think he is rejecting.

Biology, apparently.

Wilconsole would certainly not have been erranous in accepting you avion SCIENCE. Why? Because evolutionists deal in assumptions.

Those assumptions are called The Scientific Method.

Therefore any new evidence will over turn your current assuptions over and over and over again.

Yes, that's why they call it science.

But hey you guys, you reckon all this mess is support for toe.

Because it is.

Your parents may have left presents for you (fossils) at Christmas. Your parents that you trust (researchers) told you Santa was true. All your friends(communtiy) get presents and believe that Santa is true. As a child you have evidence for Santa. Then you mature and learn there really is no Santa.

What does this have to do with evolution?

Your research is in a fledgling state and in its' infancy.

Nah. ToE was well established over 50 years ago. Everything since then is based on it.

It will need much more maturity to undertand what has gone on and are not seeing anything with the eye of understanding yet. Too many questions and too few answers.

And your opinion should carry more weight than that of the entire consensus of Biologists because...?

Biologists redraw entire bird evolutionary tree

Friday, 27 June 2008
This new tree contains several notable surprises.
For example, falcons are more closely related to songbirds than to other hawks and eagles. The closest kin of the diving birds called grebes turn out to be flamingos. And tiny, flashy hummingbirds, according to the new tree, are just a specialised form of nighthawks, whose squat, bulky bodies make them an unlikely cousin.
In fact, the new tree ended up regrouping about a third of all the orders in earlier phylogenies of birds.
According to Reddy, that shows you how inconsistent it has been.
The new tree may have profound implications for our understanding of the major innovations in the evolutionary history of birds, said Joel Cracraft, curator of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US.
For example, the new tree puts an order of flying birds, the tinamous, squarely in the midst of the flightless ostriches, emus and kiwis.
If true, this implies either that flightlessness evolved at least twice in this lineage, or else that the tinamous re-evolved flight from a flightless ancestor.

Cool, eh? Did you notice how none of it called ToE into question in any way? So why do you cite it?

 

[Autodidact]

What science..you are the one that is unfamiliar with your own work,,I knew Tiktaalik was disputed..you didn't. I know more about your science than you apparently.

You're mistaken. Tiktaalik is not "disputed." It clearly exists, is a tetrapod, is transitional between fish and land animals. What exactly do you think is "disputed" about Tiktaalik and why does it matter?

 

[painted wolf]

You're mistaken. Tiktaalik is not "disputed." It clearly exists, is a tetrapod, is transitional between fish and land animals. What exactly do you think is "disputed" about Tiktaalik and why does it matter?

I think newhope holds to the outdated concept of the "ladder of progress".
That and some weird idea that Tiktaalik is the direct ancestor of tetrapods, rather than one of several species representing the ancestry of tetrapods. Like saying that your cousin disproves your grandfather.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, my grandfather is known to lie a lot under certain circunstances. Maybe there is something to it.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I think newhope holds to the outdated concept of the "ladder of progress".

There is a progression towards increasing complexity in evolution...but I know what you mean...terms like 'primitive' are utterly absurd.

Like the simplistic creationist interpretation that humans descended from monkeys...

Humans descended from the ancestors of monkeys.

 

[jarofthoughts]

There is a progression towards increasing complexity in evolution...but I know what you mean...terms like 'primitive' are utterly absurd.

Like the simplistic creationist interpretation that humans descended from monkeys...

Humans descended from the ancestors of monkeys.

Exactly. And we didn't descend from apes either.
By all taxonomical reasoning we ARE apes...

 

[Danmac]

The fossil record is far from complete nor is it ever likely to become complete.
The reason for this is simply that whether a fossil forms or not is dependent upon several factors and considering the time-scale involved there is a huge risk that the fossil might be destroyed before it is ever found. Not all species fossilise that well either and fossils are more easily formed around hard parts of the body such as bones or shells.

That's kinda like saying, "I have a million dollars and I can prove it, but you can't see the million dollars.

 

[outhouse]

That's kinda like saying, "I have a million dollars and I can prove it, but you can't see the million dollars.

no its not.

this is your lack of education speaking

its more like i have a million dollars, here is different serial numbers from the whole collection so you can see i have the whole collection. As well here are studies done that have witnessed the facts that i have the million dollars. AND I show a source of where I got the million dollars from, and the source verifys I have the million dollars.

there is no mystery to evolution, only those living in denial over the facts of reality

 

[LuisDantas]

That's kinda like saying, "I have a million dollars and I can prove it, but you can't see the million dollars.

That might be correct if fossils where the only or at least the main evidence of evolution, I guess.

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by Wilson Cole;
The Bible and science does not disagree.

That's odd, because previously you have said:

Please show me where I, even once, claimed to base my beliefs on science. It is much too fallible and prone to error.

That was in response to your ridiculous statement: “….don’t lie to us and say you base your beliefs in science.”
I do not base my beliefs on science and never will. I might illustrate my position this way:
The Bible and weather prediction does not disagree; yet I do not base my beliefs on weather prediction. It is much too fallible and prone to error. You see - it is not a matter of one or the other. It is not a matter of the Bible or science. Well - maybe for you, it is. Not for me.
The Biblical statement: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, . . .” (Isaiah 40:22) The term “circle of the earth” is not scientifically inaccurate. It proves, among other things, that the writers did not believe the earth was flat.
Consider these statements, too:
“He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing; Wrapping up the waters in his clouds, So that the cloud mass is not split under them; …… He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, To where light ends in darkness.” (Job 26:7, 8, 10)
Earth’s water cycle is described correctly in Biblical terms:
“All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7) Every second the sun lifts 16,000,000 tons of water vapor from the seas, which vapor becomes clouds that float inland and precipitate rain. Without the laboring sun the sea waters would not return to the rivers whence they came, and rainfall would cease. (WT 1950)
The writers were unacquainted with these details, but they were, nevertheless, correct.
Clearly, this is not mythology.

Yet, I detect that you keep trying to use science to prove your conclusions.

When science matches Scriptural truth, I will use it , too.

Wilson: You really do not have the right to strut your stuff in the name of science when the conclusions arrived at in some processes are seemingly based on nothing but conjecture.

This statement is perfectly true. Fortunately, I can tell when they are off the path of truth.

Which is it? Does science work, or doesn't it?

Sometimes it does - sometimes it doesn‘t.

Is this man a paleontologist? Does he have something to say about the subject of this thread, fossils and evolution? If not, why are you quoting him?

I have to do this again:
He did say something about evolution. Go back and check.
I quote him to show you that, although he accepts the Bible’s point of view, he, like myself, will not reject all of science because some of it does work.

 

[Autodidact]

That's kinda like saying, "I have a million dollars and I can prove it, but you can't see the million dollars.

Yes, if you add, "But you can examine my bank records, credit report and lifestyle."

 

[Autodidact]

I do not base my beliefs on science and never will.

Exactly. Thank you. That is all we need to know. There is nothing more to discuss, and again, I appreciate your honesty, which is rare among creationists.

 

[Danmac]

no its not.

this is your lack of education speaking

its more like i have a million dollars, here is different serial numbers from the whole collection so you can see i have the whole collection. As well here are studies done that have witnessed the facts that i have the million dollars. AND I show a source of where I got the million dollars from, and the source verifys I have the million dollars.

there is no mystery to evolution, only those living in denial over the facts of reality

As i said, you can't show me the million dollars, and many of the ones that you can produce are counterfeit bills.

 

[Danmac]

Yes, if you add, "But you can examine my bank records, credit report and lifestyle."

I have one thing to say.....

[youtube]OaiSHcHM0PA[/youtube]
YouTube - JERRY MAGUIRE (Tom Cruise) - SHOW ME THE MONEY (clean edit)

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, Danmac, I understand. For you, science is impossible, and you only believe what you can directly observe with your own eyes. That's why you know the world is flat.

 

[Danmac]

Yes, Danmac, I understand. For you, science is impossible, and you only believe what you can directly observe with your own eyes. That's why you know the world is flat.

Your beginning to sound like a theist.

 

[Alceste]

That's kinda like saying, "I have a million dollars and I can prove it, but you can't see the million dollars.

You can walk out into the badlands yourself and find fossilized remains if you have the inclination. You can go to any natural history museum in the world and see an extensive collection of fossils. You can order up a coffee table book full of glossy photos of famous fossils. You can buy fossils online. While it's true we don't have (or need, or want) the fossilized remains of every individual creature that ever lived (which I assume is what is meant by a "complete" fossil record), there is no scarcity of fossils to be getting on with, and certainly there are more than enough to paint a fairly complete picture of our origins. One which matches, incidentally, what we have discovered about our origins through the study of DNA.

You CAN see the million dollars if you want - anyone can. You just prefer not to look at it.

 

[outhouse]

As i said, you can't show me the million dollars, and many of the ones that you can produce are counterfeit bills.

you believe this because of your lack of a proper education

 

[Autodidact]

Your beginning to sound like a theist.

In what way?

 

[David M]

There is a progression towards increasing complexity in evolution...but I know what you mean...terms like 'primitive' are utterly absurd.

Like the simplistic creationist interpretation that humans descended from monkeys...

Humans descended from the ancestors of monkeys.

Not strictly true, humans did descend from monkeys (and apes) just not any living species of monkey (or ape). Our distant ancestors were monkeys.