What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?

Is something wrong with you? In one sentence you say that coelacanth is NOT a species and in the very next sentence you say "that 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found..."
You make a person wary of anything you say. You just might reverse yourself in mid-sentence.

No fossil specimen of either Latimeria species have been found that are tens of millions of years old and the fossils that we do have are so dissimilar that they have been classed as separate species and most of them in separate families.

That is not important to me unless you are saying that they could not interbreed.

Yep, they look the same don't they (ignoring the size difference)? No, they don't.

Your text says that the drawing of the fossil fish could not be properly completed.
Overall, a very silly argument. Look at the images below. I am sure you can note the differences. Yet, the fact remains that they are still dogs.

Now look at this:

These do not look the same. But are you trying to tell me that, because of physical differences, they are evolving into something other than human?

You have ignored the fact that the moose first has to survive to reach the age when it can mate, any advantage that makes it more likely to do so increases its fitness.

Another very silly argument!
YOU have ignored the fact that the moose has ALREADY survived to reach mating stage. Likelihood of surviving to that point is not in question at all.

Then any advantages it has that make it more likely to be the moose that mates increases its fitness. Remember: "enhanced probability of reproducing".

More theory and another oversight!
In the mating process, the weaker moose is shoved aside and the stronger one gets to mate. But you have shown absolutely nothing that could alter their genetic information; so there is no transformation in the species. Right? And, as long as the process continues, moose remain moose, to your chagrin.

Thanks for demonstrating how natural selection works within a species.

On the contrary - I think I demonstrated how natural selection does NOT work.

Still sticking with the simplistic and igorant view of "Survival of the Fittest", as I pointed out it does not mean that the fit always survive and unfit always die.

Talking out of the side of your mouth again?
You just said "Survival of the FITTEST!" Now you say the fit does not always survive!
You are one confused individual!

It means that the animals in a species that have advantages in the current environment have a higher probability of reproducing (and passing on their DNA) than animals with lesser or no advantages.

No one has demonstrated this, in nature or in captivity.
That is just theory again! Look! The squirrels caught in my trap have no "probability of reproducing (and passing on their DNA)" That, in no way, weakens the squirrel population and/or their fitness. Even the ones that DO succeed end up dying just like the unfortunate ones.

As you know, the moose that loses its bid for mating privileges does not get to pass on its DNA that mating season unless it gets lucky with another lady moose. Its genes have a lower chance of surviving in the species than the moose that does get to mate.

Theory talking! Do I have to say it again? There is no such thing as luck and there is no alteration in the genetic data. Maybe you can prove that there is. I'd like to see it.
So moose remains moose.

Thanks for once again demonstrating how natural selection works.

You are thanking me for giving you the opportunity to propagate theory?
Even YOU have not "demonstrated how natural selection works."
And that's only because it doesn't!

Wilson:
The long neck of the Giraffe gives it no advantage over the sheep and the trunk of the elephant gives it no advantage over the dik-dik.

Its irrelevant as giraffes and sheep do not mate with each other and neither do elephants and dik-dik.

Red Herring! They both survive! And it has nothing to do with interbreeding between diverse types of animals.Theory says that it is either because of avoidance of predation or success in competition for food. Fitness is, says Theory, conducive to both. Nature says “not” because she allows the strong and the weak, the lion and the lamb, the elephant and the dik-dik, to survive and flourish alongside each other.
Only non-thinkers would swallow such clap-trap!
Wilson:
“If a type of animal goes extinct, can the fossils really tell why? Can you verify that it was solely because it was not fit or because of fierce competition for food?"

No you can't often tell why, but natural selection is not just an explanation for extinction its one of the explanations for why species evolve. Once they become extinct the species is no longer evolving.

No! It is supposed to tell why some living things survive and others don't. Then why do you put such faith in the fossils? Anyway, that is still Theory. BTW, are you saying that “survival of the fittest” and natural selection is one and the same thing? This mechanism has not been demonstrated in nature nor under human control what with all the failed Drosophilia experiments.

You cannot snatch victory from defeat.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

Is something wrong with you? In one sentence you say that coelacanth is NOT a species and in the very next sentence you say "that 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found..."
You make a person wary of anything you say. You just might reverse yourself in mid-sentence.

He is being very clear, and most certainly not being contradictory. Coelacanth is an order. There are species within that order. An order is not an species, because it contains various species instead.

In fact, as you can see below, an order contains Families and Geni before arriving at Species level.

Biological classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is not important to me unless you are saying that they could not interbreed.

That is basically what being different species means, yes. And since Families are two whole classification levels above species, it is a safe bet that they couldn't interbreed.

 

[David M]

Is something wrong with you? In one sentence you say that coelacanth is NOT a species and in the very next sentence you say "that 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found..."

What I said is that Coelocanth is a common name for an order of fish, an order can contain many species. In the same way "humming bird" is a common name that covers a number of species of bird.

You make a person wary of anything you say. You just might reverse yourself in mid-sentence.

Your inability to comprehend the difference between "common name for an entire order of fish" and "a species" is your problem alone.

That is not important to me unless you are saying that they could not interbreed.

As they existed in vastly different time periods I'd say that they could not interbreed.

Your text says that the drawing of the fossil fish could not be properly completed.

It says one single 1 fin could not be completed. The rest could be and the pictures clearly show clear differences in skeletal morphology/

Overall, a very silly argument. Look at the images below. I am sure you can note the differences. Yet, the fact remains that they are still dogs.

Now look at this:

These do not look the same. But are you trying to tell me that, because of physical differences, they are evolving into something other than human?

Show me pictures of dogs and humans with differing numbers of bones attaching in different places and ways. That is what those drawings show.

Another very silly argument!
YOU have ignored the fact that the moose has ALREADY survived to reach mating stage. Likelihood of surviving to that point is not in question at all.

Of course it is, unless your position is that every moose born reaches mating age.

More theory and another oversight!
In the mating process, the weaker moose is shoved aside and the stronger one gets to mate. But you have shown absolutely nothing that could alter their genetic information; so there is no transformation in the species. Right? And, as long as the process continues, moose remain moose, to your chagrin.

And there you have it, definitive proof that Wilson lacks even a rudimentry knowledge of both biology and evolution.

On the contrary - I think I demonstrated how natural selection does NOT work.

No, you have demonstrated that you do not know how the Theory of Evolution states that natural selection and evolution are supposed to work. Your entire argument is a neo-Lamarckian strawman.

Talking out of the side of your mouth again?
You just said "Survival of the FITTEST!" Now you say the fit does not always survive!
You are one confused individual!

No, you said "Survival of the FITTEST!" and took that to mean that the fit always survive.

I responded by qualifing that it really means an enhanced probability of reproducing by those slightly better adapted to the current environment. Thats what evolution actually says.

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

No one has demonstrated this, in nature or in captivity.
That is just theory again! Look! The squirrels caught in my trap have no "probability of reproducing (and passing on their DNA)" That, in no way, weakens the squirrel population and/or their fitness. Even the ones that DO succeed end up dying just like the unfortunate ones.

Yes it had been demonstrated. Even manifest liars like Answers in Genesis no longer dispute evolution can result in changes within species and in new species arising.

Yes, everything dies. But the ones that reproduce have passed on their specific combination of their DNA to the next generation.

Theory talking! Do I have to say it again? There is no such thing as luck and there is no alteration in the genetic data. Maybe you can prove that there is. I'd like to see it.
So moose remains moose.

"gets lucky" is a phrase that means "gets to have sex". Its been around long enough that I doubt you have failed to encounter it.

The "alteration of the genetic data" as you put is happens during meisosis, it happened before the moose was born. You, personally, contain just over 100 alterations in genetic data when compared to your parents. You have just over 100 mutations in your DNA that neither of your parents possess and that none of your sibling possess (if you have any).

When you have children some of that altered genetic data is passed on to each of your children (and they also get just over 100 alterations that makes their genetic data more than just a mix of their parents).

What natural selection effects is which slightly different set of genetic data has the better probabilty of being passed on to the next generation.

Such a stunning level of ignorance about genetics indicates that you have no credibility to argue against evolution, you do not understand even the most basic concepts on which it is founded.

You are thanking me for giving you the opportunity to propagate theory?
Even YOU have not "demonstrated how natural selection works."
And that's only because it doesn't!

Yes, because the theory of evolution and the mechanism of naturl selection are correct, however it is not the theory nd mechanism that exists in your mind because you don't know what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

Red Herring! They both survive! And it has nothing to do with interbreeding between diverse types of animals.Theory says that it is either because of avoidance of predation or success in competition for food. Fitness is, says Theory, conducive to both. Nature says &#8220;not&#8221; because she allows the strong and the weak, the lion and the lamb, the elephant and the dik-dik, to survive and flourish alongside each other.

Once again, you don't know what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

The "weak" can be just as fit as the "strong" in their respective environments, this is because fit is not defined as strong or fast.

BTW, are you saying that &#8220;survival of the fittest&#8221; and natural selection is one and the same thing? This mechanism has not been demonstrated in nature nor under human control what with all the failed Drosophilia experiments.

What you think &#8220;survival of the fittest&#8221; means and natural selection are certainly not the same. However the principle of evolution via natural selection which more knowledgeable people characterise as &#8220;survival of the fittest&#8221; are pretty much the same thing.

Are you taking about the Drosophilia experiments that were specifically run to alter and disable individual genes so that the scientists could identify what function of those genes was? Because they were very successful in telling us which genes do what.

Or are you taliking about the successful Drosophilia experiments that were to do with speciation events? I'm guessing its the former.

You cannot snatch victory from defeat.

It is to laugh.

You have demonstrated you don't even know the basics of evolutionary theory. You even claiming victory against concepts that exists solely in your own head.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is something wrong with you? In one sentence you say that coelacanth is NOT a species and in the very next sentence you say "that 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found..."
You make a person wary of anything you say. You just might reverse yourself in mid-sentence.

Either you can't read or you know literally nothing about taxonomy.

In either case, what you have written above is enough to clearly demonstrate that you are simply not qualified to engage in any kind of reasoned, honest or intellectual debate on this particular subject.

 

[painted wolf]

Moose have always been moose?

There are four genetically distinct moose populations in North America alone.

This is the oldest known moose... it's face is narrow like a deer and it was built for running in the plains. It shows up starting around 5 million years ago. Several species become more moose-like until they go extinct around 70,000 years ago.

Starting 700,000 years ago you get really moose like starting with the first member of the genus: Alces latifrons... this is where you get the development of the "moose nose". But in many ways these guys aren't modern moose yet.

There are 15 other species of Alces after this guy leading to the modern moose...each one a little more like the moose we know today: Alces Alces.

by 40,000 years ago you also other cousins of the modern moose like this guy.

He goes extinct about the same time the modern moose starts to show up.. about 10,000 years ago.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Either you can't read or you know literally nothing about taxonomy.

In either case, what you have written above is enough to clearly demonstrate that you are simply not qualified to engage in any kind of reasoned, honest or intellectual debate on this particular subject.

I said this to him just a few responses ago when he blurted out of his mouth that the study of old bones was "stupid".......

 

[camanintx]

Another very silly argument!
YOU have ignored the fact that the moose has ALREADY survived to reach mating stage. Likelihood of surviving to that point is not in question at all.

And you still haven't explained now a moose that doesn't mate passes along any genetic information to the next generation.

 

[wilsoncole]

Either you can't read or you know literally nothing about taxonomy.

You effort to be insulting is pitiable. I may be able to read better than you can. I taught public reading for years.
I know about taxonomy what I read and I really believe it has gone too far. Classifying animals by physical resemblance is a mistake. And telling me that a whale once was a cow is nothing but a joke!
Even attempts at genetic comparison is seriously flawed. Bestiality is reprehensible. Bit if you swallow the line that mankind is so genetically close to apes, why is it there has been no interbreeding? There is nothing that godless men would not do.

Please do not attempt to explain to me what someone else MEANT. That is another mistake. They can do a much better job.
A Biblical principle has been violated here:

“As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.” (Proverbs 26:17)
What does this mean?
Well, when you grab a dog by the ears, he tries to get you to let go. If you hang on, he gets angrier and letting go becomes a problem. You might suffer a serious wound.
Do you get the point?​

I READ what the man said and responded accordingly.

In either case, what you have written above is enough to clearly demonstrate that you are simply not qualified to engage in any kind of reasoned, honest or intellectual debate on this particular subject.

I know what the ToE says and you couldn't explain it better than this:
Evolution - encyclopedia article about Evolution.

Problem is:
I'M NOT BUYING IT!
Don't talk to me about honesty. An atheist/evolutionist cannot know what that is.

Education in any particular field is certainly not wisdom.
That, Sir, you do not have.
Example:
A fool is a person who works, consistently, against his own interests.
You want to agrue with that?
You couldn't get a wise person to do that.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Moose have always been moose?

There are four genetically distinct moose populations in North America alone.

This is the oldest known moose... it's face is narrow like a deer and it was built for running in the plains. It shows up starting around 5 million years ago. Several species become more moose-like until they go extinct around 70,000 years ago.
Starting 700,000 years ago you get really moose like starting with the first member of the genus: Alces latifrons... this is where you get the development of the "moose nose". But in many ways these guys aren't modern moose yet.
There are 15 other species of Alces after this guy leading to the modern moose...each one a little more like the moose we know today: Alces Alces.

by 40,000 years ago you also other cousins of the modern moose like this guy.He goes extinct about the same time the modern moose starts to show up.. about 10,000 years ago.

wa:do

And so - after all your fanfare, and regardless of how the moose got his famous nose, you just have to conclude that it is a moose, an old moose and nothing but a moose and will never be anything else.

Isn't it?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

And you still haven't explained now a moose that doesn't mate passes along any genetic information to the next generation.

Why should I?
I never said it does.
Deviousness is demonic.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

I said this to him just a few responses ago when he blurted out of his mouth that the study of old bones was "stupid".......

If you are talking about me, I would like you to show me where I said that.
If you cannot produce the quote, will admit that you just lied?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

I know what the ToE says and you couldn't explain it better than this:
Evolution - encyclopedia article about Evolution.

And yet you managed to think that "alteration of genetic data" occurs in the moose that managed to mate and did not understand what "Fittest" means even though there is a description of what Fitness means in evolutionary terms in that article.

Did you ever read that explanation?

If you are talking about me, I would like you to show me where I said that.

Post #1009.

 

[painted wolf]

And so - after all your fanfare, and regardless of how the moose got his famous nose, you just have to conclude that it is a moose, an old moose and nothing but a moose and will never be anything else.

Isn't it?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

I suppose if you have a very liberal definition of what a moose is. That a moose is just a deer.... and on and on. And that the differences in the modern populations are inconsequential.

I don't think God left all these fossils and genetic evidence to trick us and lead us astray.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Why should I?
I never said it does.
Deviousness is demonic.

Then why do you say that natural selection doesn't exist in nature? Survival of the fittest simply refers to an organism's ability to pass along it's genetic makeup, not whether the organism itself survives.

Post #1009.

And the point goes to David M.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You effort to be insulting is pitiable. I may be able to read better than you can. I taught public reading for years.

And yet you clearly misread what you were quoting. Either that, or you're just being dishonest.

I know about taxonomy what I read and I really believe it has gone too far. Classifying animals by physical resemblance is a mistake. And telling me that a whale once was a cow is nothing but a joke!

So, you clearly don't understand taxonomy, then.

Animals are not classified by physical resemblance alone, but by physical attributes, genetics and capacity for interbreeding.

Yet again, you show your ignorance of basic science.

Even attempts at genetic comparison is seriously flawed. Bestiality is reprehensible. Bit if you swallow the line that mankind is so genetically close to apes, why is it there has been no interbreeding? There is nothing that godless men would not do.

Put aside the fact that this argument is monumentally stupid and ignorant, it's also a logical fallacy - appeal to consequence. Just because you don't personally like the implications of a given fact does not render that fact untrue.

Also, yet again your ignorance of taxonomy rears it's heads. Humans are not "genetically close" to apes. We are apes. Homo sapiens belong in the ape family, as part of the genus homo. There are many other species in the ape family, but, as you should well be aware were you to understand taxonomy and genetics on any level whatsoever, separate species are defined by their inability to interbreed with each other.

Also, I'm a Godless man, and there is plenty I wouldn't do. This includes spreading ignorance, as you are doing.

Please do not attempt to explain to me what someone else MEANT. That is another mistake. They can do a much better job.

I didn't say what they meant - I just stated that you didn't have any idea what they meant. Again, your reading comprehension is seriously in question.

A Biblical principle has been violated here:

“As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.” (Proverbs 26:17)
What does this mean?
Well, when you grab a dog by the ears, he tries to get you to let go. If you hang on, he gets angrier and letting go becomes a problem. You might suffer a serious wound.
Do you get the point?​

I READ what the man said and responded accordingly.

You read it, but you failed to understand it. Either that, or you are genuinely clueless about taxonomy. It's already been explained by the posts above.

I know what the ToE says and you couldn't explain it better than this:
Evolution - encyclopedia article about Evolution.

Problem is:
I'M NOT BUYING IT!

Problem is:
Nobody cares if you "buy it" since you clearly don't even have a basic grasp of the concepts involved - like taxonomic ranking.

Also, evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

Don't talk to me about honesty. An atheist/evolutionist cannot know what that is.

Even if we didn't, at least we'd know what the difference between a species, genus and family is. So, we're one step up from you.

Education in any particular field is certainly not wisdom.
That, Sir, you do not have.

As if you'd know.

Example:
A fool is a person who works, consistently, against his own interests.
You want to agrue with that?
You couldn't get a wise person to do that.

Kind of like how you're arguing about something you have no idea about, and are therefore making yourself look pretty stupid? I'd say that's arguing against your own interests.

 

[camanintx]

Bestiality is reprehensible. Bit if you swallow the line that mankind is so genetically close to apes, why is it there has been no interbreeding? There is nothing that godless men would not do.

Funny, but I don't hear atheists suggesting that we should interbreed with apes. If your ignorant belief system is all that prevents you from being so depraved, then by all means, keep on believing.

 

[wilsoncole]

And yet you managed to think that "alteration of genetic data" occurs in the moose that managed to mate

Sorry, Dave. Are you going to lie too? Check again.
Evolutionists on a lying spree or something?

and did not understand what "Fittest" means even though there is a description of what Fitness means in evolutionary terms in that article.

I know what Darwin proposed as "fittest." He called it "natural selection."
You cannot tell me what I did not understand. Others think like me on this point.
“Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea....As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering..." ( Tom Bethell Harper’s magazine February 1976, pp. 72, 75.)

Goalpost moving is getting quite popular.
"Survival" means something one day, and when seriously challenged, it means something else the next.
You do the same things with lots of words. Like "theory." "Empirical evidence" is now "theory." "Theory" is now fact. "Fact" is now "perhaps" or "maybe" or "could be" or "possible". Evidence is no longer proof.
Dingbats!

Did you ever read that explanation?

I read it but you don't get it - I'm not buying it - from you nor them.

Post #1009.

You're not very careful. Check this post again and then quote me correctly.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[tumbleweed41]

Deviousness is demonic.
Wilson

Then why avoid the question?

Does the fossil record in any way support Creationism, young or old earth varieties, derived from a literal reading of Genesis?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If you are talking about me, I would like you to show me where I said that.
If you cannot produce the quote, will admit that you just lied?

This is too funny. I've already had to show in this very thread where newhope101 quote mined and now you want me to show where you actually said "Faith in old bones is quite stupid".....OK, well, here it goes........

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2336565-post1009.html
"Faith in old bones is quite stupid."

And my response to your uneducated response was here;
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2337401-post1040.html

Whew....So glad I got that out of the way......

 

[wilsoncole]

And yet you managed to think that "alteration of genetic data" occurs in the moose that managed to mate and did not understand what "Fittest" means even though there is a description of what Fitness means in evolutionary terms in that article.

Seems like deception is deeply ingrained in unbelievers.
Check Reply # 1061
These are my words:
"Theory talking! Do I have to say it again? There is no such thing as luck and there is no alteration in the genetic data. Maybe you can prove that there is. I'd like to see it. So moose remains moose."
What is your purpose in twisting my words?

Post #1009.

You and your cronies are quite mistaken or deliberately deceitful.
True to the art of altering the meaning of words to suit evolutionary goals, "FAITH" is now "study." I hope you remember that when I use the word according to YOUR meaning.
Check Reply # 1009 again. You cannot alter the words. They are as if chiseled in stone.
I did not say "Study of old bones is stupid." I know that such studies pay well.
My exact words:
"Faithin old bones is quite stupid. They cannot provide for you protect you nor save you."

Now let's use the words the way you claimed I did - OK?
"Study of old bones is stupid. They cannot provide for you protect you nor save you."
You can only have faith in something greater than yourself. Something that can provide for you, protect you or save you.

Dave, don't talk to me about honesty. You are unable to recognize it. That is why you cannot admit that you lied.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson