What does the fossil record say?

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh goodness you are feeling threatened.

Quit the posturing, newhope, you're not impressing anyone.

You are the one that is postulating the Cambrian explosion is anti evolutionary. This is not what I said. I said the Cambrian explosion is good evidence for a creative day, you are the one that needs to explain how the Cambrian explosion came about and why. Good luck..you have a choice of many theories.

Newhope, you are a liar.

Here is what you said in post 1572:

So SOME components APPEAR to have evolved once. Yet, complex, image forming eyes evolved 50-100 times. Complex eyes APPEAR to have evolved in a rapid burst of evolution during the Cambrian.

It appears to me that you and your researchers really have no idea what a half functioning eye would do, or who had them, or whatever. All you know is that some creatures today have very different systems. The rest is theoretical and really you and your researhers have no idea, That's the truth.

I think it is very cheeky and misleading of you to make out the status quo is anything to the contrary.

Indeed this is an excellent refute to TOE, that you are unable to answer by any method other than a wish list. You wish you had evidence of evolving complexity of the eye, but you do not. Indeed the evidence, complex eyes suddenly appearing in the cambrian, is supportive of creation. You need you theoretical assumptions of probably, likely, maybe, to turn the creation into a mystery.


You did claim that the Cambrian explosion contradicted evolution theory, and supported creation. It does neither. You are misrepresenting science and lying to cover it up.

I actually do not like to use any of your science against you as it all changes and is mostly biased rubbish. Unfortunately I am stuck with it as flawed and biased and inconsistent and changeable as it is

You're not qualified to tell me what science is flawed, and you're certainly not qualified to preach to me about bias.

Don't forget you evos say fossils are rare in these early periods and that is your excuse for not having fossils to back every theory.

Have you read this nature article that suggests multicellul life was here 2.1 billion ya.

The results of an article published in Nature in 2010,[103] have shown that eukaryotic multicellularity, which had been thought to evolve with the beginning of Cambrian Period, might date back to 2.1 billion years ago, which is approximately 1.55 billion years earlier than the date indicated by currently dominating scientific evidence.[104]
.
Phylogenetic techniques
Cladistics is a technique for working out the “family tree” of a set of organisms. It works by the logic that, if groups B and C have more similarities to each other than either has to group A, then B and C are more closely related to each other than either is to A. Characteristics which are compared may be anatomical, such as the presence of a notochord, or molecular, by comparing sequences of DNA or protein. The result of a successful analysis is a hierarchy of clades – groups whose members are believed to share a common ancestor. The cladistic technique is sometimes fallible, as some features, such as wings or camera eyes, evolved more than once, convergently – this must be taken into account in analyses.

From the relationships, it may be possible to constrain the date that lineages first appeared. For instance, if fossils of B or C date to X million years ago and the calculated "family tree" says A was an ancestor of B and C, then A must have evolved more than X million years ago.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many traits arise independently, and does not denote close ancestry. Your whole system both linnean and phylogenic are biased and flawed.

And you, clearly, do not even have the slightest idea what the sources you're quoting are actually saying, do you?

Here's an idea: explain everything that you just said in your own words, then explain exactly how it indicates how any "system" is flawed.

Also, I love how whenever I or anyone else completely outsmarts you on one subject (the Cambrian explosion) rather than stand your ground like anybody with any basis for their position would do, you quickly move onto another subject. Are you that insecure?

 

[camanintx]

Single celled organisms cannot become muti-celled.
Can you name a single example of that happening in nature?

Actually, every living organism on this planet (including you) starts out as a single cell organism (look up "zygote"). The transformation from a single cell to a multi-cell organism not only happens very frequently, it also happens amazingly fast.

So the real question for evolution is how long would it take the zygote for one organism to change into the zygote for a different organism. When you consider the shear number of mutations which exist in each individual organism, and the number of organisms within a given population, a few million years is more than adequate.

 

[newhope101]

It didn't... no matter how much you ignore the evidence of life before the Cambrian exists doesn't make it go away. Doing this isn not an argument: :ignore:
Another intentional misrepresentation of what I said from PW. How unlike you! Not. The Cambrian appears to be illustrating another creational day, not the first, dear. Even God staged the creation. Darwin was a copycat.
Although, your "creative day" argument brings up another interesting implication about God.... Slow and unresponsive. So many of his creations died the same "day" he made them it makes him look even less intelligent and powerful. Not only does it take him millions of years to create things in a "day" but he can't keep them around after he makes them.:no:
You believe in some sort of God too. I hope He/She slaps you. Oh that's right..you are not an idiot because you believe in a God and TOE. What does your God do..sit around and look pretty and not much more, I guess.
We just happen to find fossils in an order that shows evolution? Even within your proposed "kinds" we find them in an order that shows evolution. Why do we find small and unspecialized mammals before we find their larger/more specialized decendants?

:no:No you don't. You now have research indicating multicellular life lived 2.1 Billion years ago, just 2.4 billion years after the earth was formed, and not 600 mya as commonly accepted.
Did god not have very many ideas for what he wanted?
:yes:Yeah..He chose to make sure the planet earth was where it needs to be exactly for life to thrive. He created the code of life, something your researchers are still trying to understand. HE invented radar before mankind did and he made sure humans could not breed with anything else. He also gave mankind reasoning ability so one can determine the reasonings of man as fallable when appropriate.
Really? With all the millions of fossils we have and the hundreds of million of years between the Cambrian and the first fossil birds found?
Not a single bird fossil from before the Jurassic? That's because your researchers do not know what they are on about and that is rubbish. Pterosaurs flew 220 million years ago and you have no idea of ancesry or the begining of reptile flight. These had fur, hollow bones like a bird, some had no teeth and shortened tail. Maybe arch learned how to fly from these guys! Birds have been around since the age of fishes or soon after and predate tetrapods. That's why your phylum are in a huge mess around these. I expect evos are the only ones allowed to 'scientifically' make up ficticious mid species and common ancestors and fill in missing fossil gaps with names for pretend species. Lucky for you because without them the evidence supports creation.
Did God only make a couple of them and forget them for all that time while he made thousands of types of bugs and other things for us to find? Does God just really love invertebrates more?
:thud:I am glad you think yourself superior enough to comment on what a deity should or should not do. That is really up yourself commentary. Your researchers should be loking for how many variations of each kind He made. If you ask the wrong questions, you will never get the right answers. Hence your researchers appear to be blind and gropping for any straw that will prop up TOE. Hence great ideas head for the garbage bin of delusionary irrefuteable evidence past.
And he let all these things die to be fossilized before he got around to inventing death after the fall?
Animals were never created to live forever, as far as the bible says. You are confusing your airy fairy God with mine.
Doesn't change the fact that egg laying mammals appear before marsupial ones or placental ones.
So stop blowing smoke and address the question.

Did god need to practice on easier things first? Or did he want to trick us?
God did not do anything to satisfy you PW. The bible speaks of staged creation in days and spoke to it before Darwin. The bible also states the first life after plant life was sea life, something your researchers have confirmed, bias and all, so Darwin and your researchers copied many biblicql ideas as the foundation for TOE. Fish and Birds were part of this same creative event. This is supported by all the trouble you guys have with reptiles and birds.
wa:do

ps... If you are willing to fudge "creative days" into hundreds of millions of years and have death come before the fall in Eden... why should we take Genesis seriously?
You do not have to take genesis seriously. I do not care what you do. Is that a surprise? The bible is not meant to be a science book, only a spiritual guide. What do you use as a spiritual guide? Probably something out of your own head...I guess you can pretend to be winner seeing as you think you are so superior as to understand the mind of God.
If Genesis is the truth and Creation happened.... why do you deny basic facts of Genesis? Is the bible wrong?It is a spiritual guide. I believe God has made sure the basic messages in the bible have been maintained. Where the bible speaks to science it is accurate. So far no evidence has been provided that refutes it. I am not speaking to your biased, assumptive theories

I note you made no mention of the article suggesting from the trees down, making arch and miroraptor headed for the rubbish bin of delusionary evidence!

It is much easier to woffle on about asides and put crap on religionists, than commit yourself to any commentary that will show your credentials up for what they are.

The sad fact is that you also have spiritual beliefs and would be a hypocrite to suggest that believers in God that also accept TOE are any more functional than those that believe in a biblical God without TOE.

So which flavour of the month do you support in relation to bird flight? Whatever your great credentialed reply, you are making a choice that suits you. That is the status of TOE and that is not science...no matter how you kick and scream and woffle.

:clap

 

[camanintx]

Have you read this nature article that suggests multicellul life was here 2.1 billion ya.

So we now have evidence that multicellular life existed for over a billion years before hard bodied organisms developed during the cambrian radiation. And this is a problem for evolutionary theory how?

So far Wilsoncole we have had immunity and reproduction offered up as answers to your questions.

I love it. After all the fruitfly and bacteria experiments, after all the millions of dollars wasted trying to prove and illustrate evolutionary processes at work, immunity and reproduction are the best this lot can come up with.

This is truly refreshing for me.

Until you and wilson can show that you understand the basic concepts exhibited by these simple examples, I see no reason to try to educate you on some of the more complex ones.

 

[camanintx]

The sad fact is that you also have spiritual beliefs and would be a hypocrite to suggest that believers in God that also accept TOE are any more functional than those that believe in a biblical God without TOE.

So which flavour of the month do you support in relation to bird flight? Whatever your great credentialed reply, you are making a choice that suits you. That is the status of TOE and that is not science...no matter how you kick and scream and woffle.

Only a creationist would consider it a weekness of science theory that it can adapt to new evidence. It's so much easier when you already have all of the answers, isn't it. Please tell me again, what does your book say that the value of pi is?

 

[newhope101]

Quit the posturing, newhope, you're not impressing anyone.

I am not here to impress or get fuballed. I do not need to posture at all. Your own evolutionary researchers can provide the poture and ammo themselves.
Newhope, you are a liar. No you are!...Kings and Queens of misrepresentation and desperation.

Here is what you said in post 1572:

So SOME components APPEAR to have evolved once. Yet, complex, image forming eyes evolved 50-100 times. Complex eyes APPEAR to have evolved in a rapid burst of evolution during the Cambrian.

It appears to me that you and your researchers really have no idea what a half functioning eye would do, or who had them, or whatever. All you know is that some creatures today have very different systems. The rest is theoretical and really you and your researhers have no idea, That's the truth.

I think it is very cheeky and misleading of you to make out the status quo is anything to the contrary.
:yes:Where am I incorrect. You have evidence of much life starting in a relatively short time. You also have theories upon theories to explain it. So, Yes the status quo being your phyla that relies on morphomogical similarity. This has been blown out of the water many times with traits arising individually. Hence the correlation of ancestry from Cambrian back to precambrian is flawed...and you have multicellular life placed at....2.2 billion years ago. Go back to BIO101.

So I did not say the Cambian explosion disproved evolution. I said the fact that non related species share traits and they can arise independently means that you have no basis to link precambrain life to any life that follows. This is all straw grabbing.
Indeed this is an excellent refute to TOE, that you are unable to answer by any method other than a wish list. You wish you had evidence of evolving complexity of the eye, but you do not. Indeed the evidence, complex eyes suddenly appearing in the cambrian, is supportive of creation. You need you theoretical assumptions of probably, likely, maybe, to turn the creation into a mystery.


You did claim that the Cambrian explosion contradicted evolution theory, and supported creation. It does neither. You are misrepresenting science and lying to cover it up.
:no:It is not the Cambrian explosion that appears to contradict TOE, rather it is the lack of your ability to justify the use of morphology as a basis to show one kind related to any other. More confusing for you now is that there is horizontal gene transfer in multicelled organisms and all your theories are truly worthless and guesses at best. Your researchers are not even sure if their was a Cambrian explosion. Like I said I shouldn't even use your own evidence against you it is so flawed and useless and changeable.

So not only are you demonstrating an ability to lie. You are also demonstrating n inability to comprehend. Don't you think PW is big headed enough to fight her own battles.
You're not qualified to tell me what science is flawed, and you're certainly not qualified to preach to me about bias.
Neither are you!:sorry1:

And you, clearly, do not even have the slightest idea what the sources you're quoting are actually saying, do you?
Yes I do, but you are unable to accept the research that upsets your litle evo world, If evolution has any basis at all you should have adapted by now to the changing face of TOE and the evidence that gets tossed aside and should be used to it. Have you adapted?
Here's an idea: explain everything that you just said in your own words, then explain exactly how it indicates how any "system" is flawed.:angel2: Maybe fish took to flight and grew feathers for warmth..I do not know, and neither do you know where birds they came from!!!
Origins

Fossil pterodactyloid flapling from the Solnhofen Limestone
Because pterosaur anatomy has been so heavily modified for flight, and immediate "missing link" predecessors have not so far been described, the ancestry of pterosaurs is not well understood. Several hypotheses have been advanced, including links to ornithodirans like Scleromochlus, an ancestry among the basal archosauriforms like Euparkeria, or among the prolacertiformes (which include gliding forms like Sharovipteryx).[18]

The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. This is just one little example from a plethora.
Also, I love how whenever I or anyone else completely outsmarts you on one subject (the Cambrian explosion) rather than stand your ground like anybody with any basis for their position would do, you quickly move onto another subject. Are you that insecure?No one has outsmarted me yet. You lot have lost every argument. Let's think back just a little for examples. Your point lost...There are credentialed creationist scientists that took pages and pages, you have been unable to provide any non theoretical evidence for Toe and need to resort to immunity as your best shot, despite all the fruitfly and bacteria research you have done and the money wasted. Now I want to show how stupid your researchers are in all their woffle about modern birds taking to flight via dinos and this will also be easy...so let's play.

I am still waiting for one of you super brains to sort out the tree down or ground up for birds. I expect I'll be waiting a long time

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links


You are another desperado! Choosing asides to woffle on about and ignoring the meaty stuff. That says it all about many of you lot.

 

[Amill]

Birds have been around since the age of fishes or soon after and predate tetrapods. That's why your phylum are in a huge mess around these. I expect evos are the only ones allowed to 'scientifically' make up ficticious mid species and common ancestors and fill in missing fossil gaps with names for pretend species.

Well....since this is a thread about the fossil record, care to share with us where the fossil record indicates the existence of birds before other tetrapods?

 

[painted wolf]

Another intentional misrepresentation of what I said from PW. How unlike you! Not. The Cambrian appears to be illustrating another creational day, not the first, dear. Even God staged the creation. Darwin was a copycat.

So God now created life before fish and birds?
How much do you have to add to the scripture newhope? Is this an extra day?

At least now you seem to be admitting there is life before the Cambrian...I'm sure you will change your mind at the next convenient moment though.

You believe in some sort of God too. I hope He/She slaps you. Oh that's right..you are not an idiot because you believe in a God and TOE. What does your God do..sit around and look pretty and not much more, I guess.

Desperation is a stinky cologne.

No you don't. You now have research indicating multicellular life lived 2.1 Billion years ago, just 2.4 billion years after the earth was formed, and not 600 mya as commonly accepted.

Hate to break it to you but yes we do.
You just said so above! Do you not pay attention to what you say? If life first appeared 2.1 billion years ago, what happened to your "creative day" of the Cambrian explosion?

Or are you now stretching a "day" to more than a billion years? Or are you adding extra days into Genesis... is a week now 8 or 9 days long?

Yeah..He chose to make sure the planet earth was where it needs to be exactly for life to thrive. He created the code of life, something your researchers are still trying to understand. HE invented radar before mankind did and he made sure humans could not breed with anything else. He also gave mankind reasoning ability so one can determine the reasonings of man as fallable when appropriate.

The code of life he was too lazy to edit but just used cut-n-paste? Because humans need genes to make gills and scales... and just happens to be almost identicle to a Chimpanzee?
Yeah, that God of yours is really impressive in his work.

That's because your researchers do not know what they are on about and that is rubbish. Pterosaurs flew 220 million years ago and you have no idea of ancesry or the begining of reptile flight. These had fur, hollow bones like a bird, some had no teeth and shortened tail. Maybe arch learned how to fly from these guys! Birds have been around since the age of fishes or soon after and predate tetrapods. That's why your phylum are in a huge mess around these. I expect evos are the only ones allowed to 'scientifically' make up ficticious mid species and common ancestors and fill in missing fossil gaps with names for pretend species. Lucky for you because without them the evidence supports creation.

LOL prove it... where is the Cambrian bird? You are peddling a lie otherwise and hoping no one notices it.
Hell I'll settle for a Silurian or Permian bird... go on get digging.

I am glad you think yourself superior enough to comment on what a deity should or should not do. That is really up yourself commentary. Your researchers should be loking for how many variations of each kind He made. If you ask the wrong questions, you will never get the right answers. Hence your researchers appear to be blind and gropping for any straw that will prop up TOE. Hence great ideas head for the garbage bin of delusionary irrefuteable evidence past.

You are the only one declaring what God can and cant do and how he did it. In fact you think you are so much better than God that you don't even really trust his "holy scripture" and feel the need to change words like "day" and whole concepts like "no death before the fall".

Why do you not trust your own holy book newhope?

Animals were never created to live forever, as far as the bible says. You are confusing your airy fairy God with mine.

Tell me where in Genesis it says that things in Eden died before the fall.... or you are adding your opinions to scripture and don't take your own holy book as the truth.
Your airy fairy tale says that no predation happened... yet the fossil record is full of things eating other things.

God did not do anything to satisfy you PW. The bible speaks of staged creation in days and spoke to it before Darwin. The bible also states the first life after plant life was sea life, something your researchers have confirmed, bias and all, so Darwin and your researchers copied many biblicql ideas as the foundation for TOE. Fish and Birds were part of this same creative event. This is supported by all the trouble you guys have with reptiles and birds.

Hate to break it to you... but plant life came AFTER sea life. You aren't really trying to keep up are you?
Again... get digging and find that bird. So far none of the evidence: fossil, molecular or genetic supports your little fantasy.

You do not have to take genesis seriously. I do not care what you do. Is that a surprise? The bible is not meant to be a science book, only a spiritual guide. What do you use as a spiritual guide? Probably something out of your own head...I guess you can pretend to be winner seeing as you think you are so superior as to understand the mind of God.

LOL, you are the one that claims to take the book seriously as literal truth... but you insist on changing it to your liking. You harp endlessly about how science can't be trusted and how it can't be taken seriously because some scientists disagree with minor points.
Hate to break it to you but you Creationsits can't even agree on defining the phrase "morning and evening of the ___ day".
If you can't figure out how long a day is, how can you be expected to figure anything out?

It is a spiritual guide. I believe God has made sure the basic messages in the bible have been maintained. Where the bible speaks to science it is accurate. So far no evidence has been provided that refutes it. I am not speaking to your biased, assumptive theories

Then stop peddling it as literal truth....
And just because you go :ignore: whenever someone points out a flaw in your "scientific bible" doesn't stop it from being fact.

For example: Plants do not predate fish. Unless you plan to go digging for those fossils too? Maybe they are next to the Cambrian birds?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You know that is not what I am suggesting. That is a cheap shot.

Ok then what are you suggesting because I totally agree that one organism does not "morph" into another organism. Humans, in this day and time, don't meet the definitions for speciation. Some other organisms have.

Your immunity example is only somatic

I disagree. You haven't displayed evidence that it is.

and does not explain a bird selecting for a half wing and that trait fixing in the population, etc.

Once more, in case you weren't paying attention, my response to wilson was to illustrate that the (sickle trait) is part of evolution and fits in perfectly with Natural Selection. Remember, his evidence he cited says as much.

Nope it's about as convincing as saying you and I are different species,

Too funny.

It shows we can build immunity and adapt to pathogens..

Which fits perfectly as to what evolution says and is definitely what we see in the process of Natural Selection...which, again, wilson's source says as much.

It shows you can't think of a better example than immunity to illustrate evolution

I was trying to illustrate to wilson that, as his own source says, it's part of the process of Natural Selection but thanks for agreeing with me that it fits with what Evolution says.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh goodness this is going to be another thing like the no single creationist biologist thing.

Don't you have anything to say about the bird thing I spoke to?

Are you getting your rocks off because immunity is the best example of a chimp evolving into a human, you can provide? You do not appear to be able to refute anything else. It's as if you are lost for words.

As you could see by the content and context of which I addressed him it was a perfect response. He said,

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
There is no such thing as "natural selection;" your "beneficial mutations" are not really beneficialecause they do not improve any organism; there is no "evolutionary process;" even reputable scientists confirmed this. (see above)

But his source disagrees by stating......


http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html (Your Source You Cited)
DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."


:slap:

 

[newhope101]

Well Penguin, if the best you can do is choose some not so well chosen words to harp about for pages and pages then you are still in a sorry state. :slap:
Wilsoncole appears to be referring to the sort of 'germ line mutations' that lead to speciation as the kind of beneficial mutations you have yet to demonstrate and science has not demonstrated as yet. There have been none of these in your drosophila or bacterial experiments, and Wilson is correct in stating so, as far as I am concerned.:clap

You have tried to pin Wilson with a somatic change as some evidence of a dinosaur morphing into a modern bird. The only research directly connected to that sort of mutations that turn some hairy tree loving beast into a human have lead to legs growing off heads or zilch advantageous allele selection.

You are unable to move on and produce better evidence from all the research that has been done. I wonder why you harp so....????:sarcastic

Have you worked out the bird thing yet? Is that too hard?:yes:

Do you know what I think is good evidence for creation? It is looking to all the theories you have re abiogenesis and knowing that you are able to reproduce all of the conditions that the various models allude to, including confounding factors. Yet in a controlled laboratory setting, with todays technology, your researchers are unable to make life from non life.

I reckon if life evolved, by now your researchers should have been able to mimic the conditions and provided the necessary elements to show how life arose. If they could it would tell you all so very much, including similarity between multiple genesis events. Your researchers have not done so. They can do all sorts of things with genes these days, yet they are unable to replicate the process and achieve a living cell from non life as it was in the beginning. Despite all the 'seeds' of life through out the universe, despite all the research and who knows what costs, have not done so.

This is a fact often dismissed. The other throw off is to differentiate abiogenesis from evolution. I think Wilson has also made this point somewhere. Then you had the LUCA. Now, with HGT (horizontal gene transfer) LUCA is out the window for many researchers. Even more recently there is evidence of HGT between multicelled organisms. The whole lot of it is based on models that assume ancestry.

I want to discuss birds because they were meant to have been created before tertrapods. In the face of a lack of fossil evidence for both sides, I say the fossil evidence you do have, supports creation and is a thorn for you evos that is still unsettled and up fro grabs. Bird footprints that predate the dinos they were supposed to have decended from is suportive of creation not TOE, because birds were here before all tetrapods.

Now you have to make up more theories to explain it and I am sure your researchers will as usual. You have pterodactyls that flew 220 million years ago. Pterosaur has hollow bones and other features of birds and fur over the body and wings. This reminds me of little chicks. I think birds have been around since fishes. Flying fish show that perhaps flight was already an idea of Gods.

I think the evidence for the creation of birds is more supportive of a biblical creation than it is of evolution because current evidence appears to contradict your status quo but agrees with what a biblical creationist would expect to find.

I also think abiogenesis and the fact that your researchers have been unable to 'make' life in a controlled lab makes it more unlikely to have happened in nature, particularly without intervention; just like advantageous allele fixing in drosophilia etc.)(

Evos are best at providing theoretical changing evidence for their TOE. But creationists are best at showing the evidence supports a biblical creation. Illustrating how silly TOE is, is just a fun pass time.

 

[painted wolf]

Wilsoncole appears to be referring to the sort of 'germ line mutations' that lead to speciation as the kind of beneficial mutations you have yet to demonstrate and science has not demonstrated as yet.

Bwahahahahah :biglaugh:

You really have to stop using words and concepts you don't understand.

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not here to impress or get fuballed. I do not need to posture at all. Your own evolutionary researchers can provide the poture and ammo themselves.

I love the fact that you say this, then immediately follow it up with this:

No you are!...Kings and Queens of misrepresentation and desperation.

Yep, sounds a hell of a lot like posturing to me.

Where am I incorrect. You have evidence of much life starting in a relatively short time. You also have theories upon theories to explain it. So, Yes the status quo being your phyla that relies on morphomogical similarity. This has been blown out of the water many times with traits arising individually. Hence the correlation of ancestry from Cambrian back to precambrian is flawed...and you have multicellular life placed at....2.2 billion years ago. Go back to BIO101.

So I did not say the Cambian explosion disproved evolution. I said the fact that non related species share traits and they can arise independently means that you have no basis to link precambrain life to any life that follows. This is all straw grabbing.

And now you're back to your usual game of changing the subject whenever anybody calls you on something. You were clearly not addressing these issues whatsoever in the paragraphs I quoted. Just swallow your pride and admit you were lying.

Neither are you!

I'm not the one doing it.

Yes I do, but you are unable to accept the research that upsets your litle evo world, If evolution has any basis at all you should have adapted by now to the changing face of TOE and the evidence that gets tossed aside and should be used to it. Have you adapted?

Nothing you have said is new to me, in any shape or form. The fact that you somehow expect me to be surprised by what you've posted here is nothing but amusing.

Maybe fish took to flight and grew feathers for warmth..I do not know, and neither do you know where birds they came from!!!

No, but evolutionary biologists have a pretty good idea and lots of facts to support it. So you'll forgive me if I take their word over yours, right?

Because pterosaur anatomy has been so heavily modified for flight, and immediate "missing link" predecessors have not so far been described, the ancestry of pterosaurs is not well understood. Several hypotheses have been advanced, including links to ornithodirans like Scleromochlus, an ancestry among the basal archosauriforms like Euparkeria, or among the prolacertiformes (which include gliding forms like Sharovipteryx).[18]

The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. This is just one little example from a plethora.

Congratulations. You've managed to find out that not everything in science is automatically known and that it takes time to uncover all the facts in order to have the complete picture of something. I have to say, the fact that you somehow think this is a point against evolution (or in favour of creation) indicates nothing more than your basic lack of understanding of how science works.

No one has outsmarted me yet. You lot have lost every argument.

Are you even reading the same thread? All you've done throughout this entire thread is spout spurious nonsense, misunderstand science, misuse research, misrepresent data and continually lurch to the next non-argument whenever anybody shows you that your ham-fisted take on science is incorrect.

Let's think back just a little for examples. Your point lost...There are credentialed creationist scientists that took pages and pages,

Not a single person in this thread ever claimed that there were no credentialed creationists (and, yet again, you've changed the subject, since the point was originally supposed to be the existence of credentialed scientists who dissented from evolution, not supported creationism).

you have been unable to provide any non theoretical evidence for Toe and need to resort to immunity as your best shot,

Nonsense. Practically every post in this thread is an explanation for the evidence of evolution. Hell, even you've linked to a lot of articles that provde it.

despite all the fruitfly and bacteria research you have done and the money wasted. Now I want to show how stupid your researchers are in all their woffle about modern birds taking to flight via dinos and this will also be easy...so let's play.

I am still waiting for one of you super brains to sort out the tree down or ground up for birds. I expect I'll be waiting a long time

"OMG science doesn't have an answer for something that I'm aware of yet! All scientists must be idiots!"

The arrogance...! The hubris...! It's unbearable!

 

[camanintx]

WeI want to discuss birds because they were meant to have been created before tertrapods. In the face of a lack of fossil evidence for both sides, I say the fossil evidence you do have, supports creation and is a thorn for you evos that is still unsettled and up fro grabs. Bird footprints that predate the dinos they were supposed to have decended from is suportive of creation not TOE, because birds were here before all tetrapods.

Seeing as the oldest bird fossil is about 110 million years old and tetrapods date back at least 375 million years, how do you figure that birds were here before all tetrapods? There are fossils of land animals going back over 400 million years, long before birds existed and directly contradicting your biblical creation myth.

 

[newhope101]

So we now have evidence that multicellular life existed for over a billion years before hard bodied organisms developed during the cambrian radiation. And this is a problem for evolutionary theory how?
Dear oh dear....what that was evidence of was, yet another change illustrating that God made multicellula organisms pretty quick smart...and your abiogenesis and biogenesis must have got rockin and rollin'.

Until you and wilson can show that you understand the basic concepts exhibited by these simple examples, I see no reason to try to educate you on some of the more complex ones.Good, then you can stop sidewinding with distractions and misrepresentations

And again I have been proven right..you are not going to take up the bird and flight issues because you and your scientists have nothing more than ideas and , because I have had to educate you!:slap:

 

[Amill]

I want to discuss birds because they were meant to have been created before tertrapods. In the face of a lack of fossil evidence for both sides, I say the fossil evidence you do have, supports creation and is a thorn for you evos that is still unsettled and up fro grabs. Bird footprints that predate the dinos they were supposed to have decended from is suportive of creation not TOE, because birds were here before all tetrapods.

Lol

We have found fossils of tretrapods. We have found fossils of birds. There hasn't been a single fossil of a bird found in rock dating to before the first tetrapod. How are you able to then deduce that birds came before tetrapods?:thud:

 

[painted wolf]

And again I have been proven right..you are not going to take up the bird and flight issues because you and your scientists have nothing more than ideas and , because I have had to educate you!:slap:

No, it's because you're blowing more smoke and trying desperately trying to avoid the fact that you don't have fossils to back you up.

Where is your Cambrian bird?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

newhope:

Why do you suppose we never find all sorts of fossils, from trilobites to weasels, in the same geologic layer? Why do certain organisms, such as mammals, only appear in the newest, top layer of rocks?

 

[newhope101]

Seeing as the oldest bird fossil is about 110 million years old and tetrapods date back at least 375 million years, how do you figure that birds were here before all tetrapods? There are fossils of land animals going back over 400 million years, long before birds existed and directly contradicting your biblical creation myth.

Indeed I have shown that plesosaurs eg pterodactyls were around 220 million years, flying around fully formed. Your researchers do not know the ancestry. They had hollow bones and other features of birds. Archaeopteryx is 150myo. There is not reason to believe birds were not around and adapted and are still here today. Just like you, I am entitled to alledge the fossils have not yet been found.

The bible says 'let the waters teem with living creatures and let birds fly across the sky, that was the 6th period of time. So far you have a flying creature in the air fully formed and flying and sometimes very huge, 220mya. I do not need a huge leap of faith to see they were here before non aquatic tetrapods. However you still need to work out from the trees down or ground up or a mix. How can any evidence you provide be evidence when you are not sure of what ancestry anything is evidence of?

 

[newhope101]

newhope:

Why do you suppose we never find all sorts of fossils, from trilobites to weasels, in the same geologic layer? Why do certain organisms, such as mammals, only appear in the newest, top layer of rocks?

Because Darwin and your researchers borrowed the biblical account which also suggests life was created in stages. I doubt the bible writers knew the linneus system so they could use the correct scientific words aves or primitive birds, they were ust things that flew that weren't like rats I guess. You say all your fossils have a nice flow from simple to more intricate but you actually do not. Multicellular life has been pushed back billions of years, and with each new fossil find, dates are pushed back further and further. Human/chimp divergence is a good example.

Meet something like your ancestor a mammaliaformes. It looks like a mammal to me and not doubt is the progeny of millions of generations of this kind right back to the creation of them in the 6th period of time. All your theories to the contrary are just theories to suit the presumption of ancestry.

Adelobasileus
Temporal range: Late Triassic
Adelobasileus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This guy looks nothing like a salamander or a fishy tetrapod. I think whales were here during the devonian also and your hippo/whale ancestor is a huge joke on you!