What does the fossil record say?

[outhouse]

and I'm still waiting for your research thay disputes my Istraeli finds. I guess I'll be waiting a long time. Your're big on talk and opinion..nothing more.

Once again Outhouse has given his opinion in place of research which is worthless.

No your interpretation of anything relevant is worthless.

The israeli find is not out yet

 

[fantome profane]

and I'm still waiting for your research thay disputes my Istraeli finds. I guess I'll be waiting a long time.

Why does this need to be disputed? What difference does it make whether humans evolved in Africa or in the Middle East? I think this is a fascinating discovery and I am eagerly waiting to see how it pans out, but as for the basic idea that humans evolved this makes no difference whatsoever. At most it is a slight change in local.

 

[Autodidact]

Absolutely..the only evidence we'll see in relation to fossil dating is their theoretical models based on the presumption of ancestry to begin with. Finalised by finding insertion values and population values, mutation rates that allow the myth to continue.

No, it's mostly based on radiometric dating, actually.

The evidence, thus far, is mankind appeared fully formed. There were tetrapods around when Tikt landed, just as one would expect to find re creation. Aves, where modern birds form a clade, and lizards are cladistically disputed in relation to taxonomy. As for mammals in general they have no idea really, just more maybe, likely and HOPEFULLY.

Really? What evidence might that be? The evidence that humans are extremely similar to several other living species? The fossil evidence of our ancestors that are also very similar to us? The evidence that our DNA is very similar to other apes? The evidence of so many kinds of early hominids and pre-hominids?

Let's try it another way. If people were magically poofed into existence fully formed, and did not evolve from any other species, what would you expect to observe as evidence?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's see.
If we take the stories in Genesis as literally true, what would we find in the fossil and geological record?

• The fossil record, from bottom to top would be mainly composed of gradually larger species. But there would be the occasional random mixture of species as well: trilobites with humans with dinosaurs with maples with Cycad trees. Species would be somewhat mixed. The very bottom layers would include signs of human habitation. This is not shown however.
• The fossil record clearly shows that land animals developed before birds. But the Genesis account indicates the reverse.
• Theologians have generally agreed that the Bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years of age. However, in Wyoming, the Green River Formation shows that varves -- a 260 meters thick formation made from annual layers of sediment -- were laid down for the past 2 million years. Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice. In each case, one detectable layer of sediment or ice is laid down each year.
• When there are fewer than about 40 members to a species, extinction is inevitable, even when massive human intervention occurs. After the flood there would have been only 2 or 7 members to each species; they would not have survived.
• There is no indication of a worldwide flood in ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, temples, pyramids, sculptures, etc., which existed at the time of Noah. Yet, if the flood really did occur, then all of the world's early civilizations would have been completely destroyed. The entire population of the world would have consisted of 8 people, in the vicinity of the ark. It would have taken millennia for humanity to become re-established in China and elsewhere.

SOURCE

 

[outhouse]

Let's see.
If we take the stories in Genesis as literally true, what would we find in the fossil and geological record?

• The fossil record, from bottom to top would be mainly composed of gradually larger species. But there would be the occasional random mixture of species as well: trilobites with humans with dinosaurs with maples with Cycad trees. Species would be somewhat mixed. The very bottom layers would include signs of human habitation. This is not shown however.
• The fossil record clearly shows that land animals developed before birds. But the Genesis account indicates the reverse.
• Theologians have generally agreed that the Bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years of age. However, in Wyoming, the Green River Formation shows that varves -- a 260 meters thick formation made from annual layers of sediment -- were laid down for the past 2 million years. Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice. In each case, one detectable layer of sediment or ice is laid down each year.
• When there are fewer than about 40 members to a species, extinction is inevitable, even when massive human intervention occurs. After the flood there would have been only 2 or 7 members to each species; they would not have survived.
• There is no indication of a worldwide flood in ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, temples, pyramids, sculptures, etc., which existed at the time of Noah. Yet, if the flood really did occur, then all of the world's early civilizations would have been completely destroyed. The entire population of the world would have consisted of 8 people, in the vicinity of the ark. It would have taken millennia for humanity to become re-established in China and elsewhere.

SOURCE

tumbleweed, logic, reason, truth and reality mean nothing to creationist. There minds are not like umbrellas, they never open.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A

Watch 'em requote LUCA or Mteve, watch 'em all put up all sorts of theoreticals, full of 'possibly' 'maybe' and 'likely' and use that as some sort of evidence.

You are EXTREMELY dishonest because no one but YOU started and argument trying to use MtEVE or Y Adam as a basis for evidence for creation. In fact we fought you on this trying to explain that MtEve wasn't the only female at the time but you persisted to keep quoting wiki as though the evidence showed "creation"...Why is it NOW you want to portray it as though you never used this information to your benefit?

No one here is bringing up MtEve as evidence of evolution or common decent. It's not necessary to. You brought it up thinking it would help your ranting on about creation but you must have come to your senses and realized it doesn't hep you at all. Now you turn tail and want to shed a negative light on MtEve......

 

[painted wolf]

Your Israeli find eh? I had no idea you were a professional paleoanthropologist in the Middle East.
And the paper should be published in a few months or so... Real science takes time.

You also act as if skulls are all we have of human ancestry.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

You are EXTREMELY dishonest because no one but YOU started and argument trying to use MtEVE or Y Adam as a basis for evidence for creation. In fact we fought you on this trying to explain that MtEve wasn't the only female at the time but you persisted to keep quoting wiki as though the evidence showed "creation"...Why is it NOW you want to portray it as though you never used this information to your benefit?

No one here is bringing up MtEve as evidence of evolution or common decent. It's not necessary to. You brought it up thinking it would help your ranting on about creation but you must have come to your senses and realized it doesn't hep you at all. Now you turn tail and want to shed a negative light on MtEve......

I dropped mteve after noting that contamination of male sperm was noted and then dismissed by your researchers. It's crap like all your modelling.

 

[newhope101]

Your Israeli find eh? I had no idea you were a professional paleoanthropologist in the Middle East.
And the paper should be published in a few months or so... Real science takes time.

You also act as if skulls are all we have of human ancestry.

wa:do

I can read though PW. This is yet another example of your researchers not knowing what they are talking about. You have no idea how long sapiens have been around for. It is guess work based on finds. That's the best you can do.

Yes there are more than skulls. Too bad your researchers still had us tied to knucklewalkers for ages. Same skulls different evolution...go figure!

With the constant debarkle over florensiensis, the debate about neanderthal connections and he is recent, I can confidently say your researchers have no idea what the fossil record is saying, nor your genomics. They hope it is showing the ancestry of all kinds to other kinds. Unfortunately it doesn't.

 

[painted wolf]

I can read though PW. This is yet another example of your researchers not knowing what they are talking about. You have no idea how long sapiens have been around for. It is guess work based on finds. That's the best you can do.

You need to read more... or at least more carefully. It's not all guesswork, fossils are only part of the evidence.

Yes there are more than skulls. Too bad your researchers still had us tied to knucklewalkers for ages. Same skulls different evolution...go figure!

You fixate on the oddest things. The fact that the last common ancestor between humans and chimps moved more like an Orang than a modern chimp doesn't change our relationship... it just reminds us that Chimps evolve too.

With the constant debarkle over florensiensis, the debate about neanderthal connections and he is recent, I can confidently say your researchers have no idea what the fossil record is saying, nor your genomics. They hope it is showing the ancestry of all kinds to other kinds. Unfortunately it doesn't.

You confidently say a lot of things... no matter how many times people try to tell you you've made a mistake.

So was the skeleton an ape or a human? How do you tell the difference?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I dropped mteve after noting that contamination of male sperm was noted and then dismissed by your researchers. It's crap like all your modelling.

But you LOVED it at the time...and you went on and on about it even though we wanted you to drop it at the time and not use it because we realized it wasn't helping your case...NOW...you have to drop it because OUR researchers showed you "the way"......You're calling it "crap modeling" even though you were on it like a pit bull on steak....I told you then to drop it and it, in itself was modeling....but NO....you kept it up...Now look at you back peddling....

 

[Dan4reason]

I can read though PW. This is yet another example of your researchers not knowing what they are talking about. You have no idea how long sapiens have been around for. It is guess work based on finds. That's the best you can do.

Yes there are more than skulls. Too bad your researchers still had us tied to knucklewalkers for ages. Same skulls different evolution...go figure!

With the constant debarkle over florensiensis, the debate about neanderthal connections and he is recent, I can confidently say your researchers have no idea what the fossil record is saying, nor your genomics. They hope it is showing the ancestry of all kinds to other kinds. Unfortunately it doesn't.

What was mainly significant about lucy is her hip is very humanlike rather than ape-like. Based on the lower-half of her body we can tell that she is bipedal.

 

[fantome profane]

It is guess work based on finds. That's the best you can do.

Silly Silly scientists drawing conclusions based on nothing more than evidence.

 

[wilsoncole]

No, it's mostly based on radiometric dating, actually.

You strive to convey the impression that this method of dating fossils is quite reliable. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Paleontologists Try to Date the Fossils

Paleontologists have attempted to copy the geologists’ success in dating rocks only a few million years old. Some of their fossils, they believe, might fall in that age range. Alas, the potassium-argon clock does not work so well for them! Of course, fossils are not found in igneous rocks but only in sediments, and for these radiometric dating is usually not trustworthy.​

An illustration of this is when fossils have been buried in a thick fall of volcanic ash that has later been consolidated to form a tuff. This is actually a sedimentary stratum, but it is made of igneous matter that solidified in the air. If it can be dated, it will serve to give the age of the fossil enclosed in it.​

Such a case was found in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans. First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. Most disappointing to evolutionists was the finding that the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.​

The conclusion was that “inherited argon” was spoiling the measurements. Not all the argon previously formed had been boiled out of the molten rock. The clock had not been set to zero. If only one tenth of 1 percent of the argon previously produced by the potassium was left in the rock when it melted in the volcano, the clock would be started with a built-in age of nearly a million years.
As one expert put it:
“Some of the dates must be wrong, and if some are wrong maybe all of them are wrong.”​

Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses."
(AWAKE! 86 9/22 pp. 20-21)​

Really? What evidence might that be? The evidence that humans are extremely similar to several other living species? The fossil evidence of our ancestors that are also very similar to us? The evidence that our DNA is very similar to other apes? The evidence of so many kinds of early hominids and pre-hominids?

Let's try it another way. If people were magically poofed into existence fully formed, and did not evolve from any other species, what would you expect to observe as evidence?

Humans as they are today - the direct descendants of their foreparents.
"Let every living thing produce after their own kind." (Genesis)

 

[David M]

You strive to convey the impression that this method of dating fossils is quite reliable. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Paleontologists Try to Date the Fossils

Paleontologists have attempted to copy the geologists’ success in dating rocks only a few million years old. Some of their fossils, they believe, might fall in that age range. Alas, the potassium-argon clock does not work so well for them! Of course, fossils are not found in igneous rocks but only in sediments, and for these radiometric dating is usually not trustworthy.​

An illustration of this is when fossils have been buried in a thick fall of volcanic ash that has later been consolidated to form a tuff. This is actually a sedimentary stratum, but it is made of igneous matter that solidified in the air. If it can be dated, it will serve to give the age of the fossil enclosed in it.​

Such a case was found in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans. First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. Most disappointing to evolutionists was the finding that the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.​

The conclusion was that “inherited argon” was spoiling the measurements. Not all the argon previously formed had been boiled out of the molten rock. The clock had not been set to zero. If only one tenth of 1 percent of the argon previously produced by the potassium was left in the rock when it melted in the volcano, the clock would be started with a built-in age of nearly a million years.
As one expert put it:
“Some of the dates must be wrong, and if some are wrong maybe all of them are wrong.”​

Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses."
(AWAKE! 86 9/22 pp. 20-21
​

I am going to go with this Awake article being a pack of lies from start to finish. They provide no citations for this figures and i expect the reason for this is that they have "neglected" to mention that the varying dates for the layers are really due to the different types of sample being dated.

I remember someone being schooled on this by a professional in the field on another board and it turns out that one set of figures came from whole rock samples that contained xenoliths and were sent in for an approximate date and the other from samples sorted to exclude xenoliths sent in for an accurate date.

 

[wilsoncole]

Do you know why/how Piltdown man was found to be a fraud? It was because when it was introduced there were no actual transitional fossils found, as time went on scientists actually did find real transitional fossils over and over again. Eventually it became clear that Piltdown man was very odd compared to all the other transitionals. So scientists finally decided to employ modern techniques to examine it that weren't available when the fraud was first fabricated, and lo and behold they found it to be a fraud.

A likely story.
Now please supply the personnel and documentation that accompanied the investigation.

 

[painted wolf]

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Again you state your opinion without the research to back it up. It is just what you do. Hence I do not bother replying to you most times.

So please put up the research as I am not wasting time refuting your unvalued opinions.

The man in the outhouse is stuck in there!
He never actually says anything and repeats whatever he says - over and over again.
"Genesis is fiction."
"Nothing but lies."
"You are ignorant."
"Get an education."
"Bible if full of myths."
"Stolen from pagans."

NEVER an upbuilding word! Not even one.

Mr. Outhouse, you're not helping anyone - not even yourself.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[newhope101]

What was mainly significant about lucy is her hip is very humanlike rather than ape-like. Based on the lower-half of her body we can tell that she is bipedal.

Yes..but she has a gorilla jaw.

 

[newhope101]

A likely story.
Now please supply the personnel and documentation that accompanied the investigation.

There are heaps of fossils that have been reclassified. Evos do not mind this, as it is what they call clarification. What evos fail to acknowledge is that anything they present as evidence is just as likely to not be evidence tomorrow.

A mistake I have made is to base anything at all I say on their computer modelling. For example Mteve looks like good evidence for creationists as there is no evidence of cohorts. Yet their are many examples of male contamination. Evos say it is too little to worry about. However from what I have read, I think they are kidding themselves. I don't think researchers yet know what they are looking at when it comes to ancestry millions of years ago. They hope they are seeing connections. I do not believe they are.

I've been playing with some research on another thread that uses fruitfly research over 600 generations. The researchers tried to fix an allele for 'accelerated development' in the population. It did not work. The advantageous allele did not become fixed. This does not prove macro evolution does not happen. However it is supportive of a creationist stance that only in kind variation is possible, not macroevolution. Much is epigenetic in nature. One would expect that after 600 generations there would be some uptake in the population. It appears the researchers were also hoping to see some fixation. It is even less likely that such an advantageous trait would become fixed in the wild.

Another article I ran spoke to fruitfly's inability to adapt to climate change. The fruitfly did not have the genetic capacity to adapt. Again, not conclusive proof of 'genetic limitations', but I feel good support. Surely the researchers were not wasting their time looking for the implausable and improbable. They were expecting to see some adaptations. There are other similar articles around on genetic limitations I have come across and I'm looking for them again.