What does the fossil record say?

[tumbleweed41]

Mr. Weed,
I think you know that you have presented a very silly response.
Do you want me to show you how silly it is?

You asked for an instance in nature where a single cell becomes another organism.
The very definition of stem cells.
If you do not want silly (yet correct) answers, don't ask silly questions.

 

[David M]

Secondly your dating of the strata often is reliant on the life within it and your presumed toe ancestry.

A lie. Its based on physics.

The earth has undergone so much in the way of catastrophy by meteor impact, super volcanic erruptions etc etc that I believe it impossible for any of your dating methods to be accurate and are guesses based on what 'should be' most of the time.

Lie.

None of this compromises radiometric dating and even if it were possible for radioactive decay rates to alter to the degree you need to support creation that does not help you one iota because the fossils still show the same sequence by relative date as by absolute date. No matter how much you try and twist things a cambrian rock is older than a devonian rock even we allow accelerated decay which means they are each younger than the tens of millions of years old that they really are.

Even the deranged fantasy that somehow a billion year old rock is only 4,000 years old it does not change the fact that birds appear after land animals and that the cambrian preceded the devonian.

Nor does it change the fact that new "kinds" by your own definition appear interspersed with other "kinds" that your book says happened on discrete and different days. There are fish "kinds" that appear after mammal "kinds".

The fossil record clearly shows that animals "according to their kind" were not created in the order specified in genesis and that the periods when these animals appear overlaps and are not separated into discrete timeframes.

It also shows that according to your definition of Kind man is not the last kind to appear on the earth.

 

[wilsoncole]

I'm not suggesting that this leads to speciation. You keep harping on this as this was my position from the start. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. My position, as well as the position that wilson's source states, is that Sickle Cell fits perfectly with Natural Selection and we know Natural Selection is a process of Evolution.

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......

NATURAL SELECTION (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."

Clearly, whatever advantages exists for mutations to advantageously affect any organism is minimal and does not continue indefinitely.

Now - pay careful attention to what came before that passage:
"
Natural Selection, Population Genetics, and the Neutral Theory
Despite the impossibility to produce a strictly deterministic model for natural selection in the face of myriad varying parameters, there have been several attempts to quantitatively assess this problem.
Fisher, perhaps the most important forerunner of the neo-Darwinian theory, has calculated (1930) that new alleles with even 1% selective advantage (i.e., more than is usually expected by neo-Darwinian theorists), will routinely be lost in natural populations. According to these calculations the likelihood of losing a new allele with 1% advantage or no advantage is more than 90% in the next 31 generations (Fisher, 1930/1958; Dobzhansky, 1951; Schmidt, 1985; see also ReMine, 1993; Futuyma, 1998; Maynard Smith, 1998). Considering genetic drift, i.e. random fluctuations of gene frequencies in populations, Griffith and colleagues state in agreement with these authors (1999, p. 564):
Even a new mutation that is slightly favorable will usually be lost in the first few generations after it appears in the population, a victim of genetic drift. If a new mutation has a selective advantage of S in the heterozygote in which it appears, then the chance is only 2S that the mutation will ever succeed in taking over the population. So a mutation that is 1 percent better in fitness than the standard allele in the population will be lost 98 percent of the time by genetic drift.

Either wilson is lying or the your/his researchers is lying. Which one is it?

You ignore the facts and figures presented by serious researchers and desperately cling to the negligible factors that seem to favor your position.

Who, really, is lying?

I think you have a problem, Sir.
Your religion is under seige!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

right there you loose all credibility

No, Sir.
That's where credibility actually begins.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

&#12288;
Wilson

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is pointless.
Wilson and Newhope will shamelessly quote-mine, ignore the actual conclusions of research they claim supports their position, ignore the actual question of the OP and generally reject all empirical objective evidence in favor of dogmatic belief in pseudoscientific and pseudohistoric sources.

Somebody let me know when reasonable discussion and/or debate is brought back to this thread.

 

[painted wolf]

Pterosaur

I should know you are too uneducated to pick it up what is meant so I need to be perfectly clear with you. :sorry1:

The problem is that I am educated enough to know what the words you toss around, trying to seem smart, actually mean.

It's not my fault that you are so careless you end up calling a sea creature a flyer... I just think it's as hilarious as it is an indication of your ability to craft a reasoned argument. :jiggy:

You really should start tying to make sure you know what your talking about before you type... this isn't the first grade-school mistake you've made like this.

wa:do

ps... riddle me this... why does a whale have a 4 chambered stomach like a cow does, while a seal doesn't? Why does a whale have a double pulley ankle in it's vestigial limbs like a cow, while a seal doesn't?

 

[painted wolf]

Because your researchers do not know what a bird is. They think they know what a modern bird is.

So, tell us what is a bird. Give us a definition of "bird kind".

According to your previous definitions there are hundreds of "kinds" of birds. Now are you suggesting that anything that flies is a "bird"?

Just a bird 125myo now extinct, untoothed and living along side our modern birds supposed ancestors still with teeth. Oh yeah,convergent evolution explains it. I cannot provide a devonian bird but I can illustrate that your researchers have no idea about any birds. What on earth has mezmerized you to the point that you think some little dino is reponsible for all the bird life here today.

Silly little newhope... you are not reading the article and only picking a pretty picture without looking at it.

So, the lack of teeth is the most important feature is it? The hands, shoulders, feet, tail, sternum and the rest don't matter?

Oh right... you can't see those and don't really care, so naturally they don't matter... it's only "common sense".

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

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.

That NEVER happens and you have no working model to draw from.

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.

Really? How man mutations are there in "each individual organism?"
Mr. Camanintx,
Why do you feel you can fool me so easily?
That response is downright dishonest.
Any single-celled organism is the entire organism, separate and distinct from any other type. That is how one can tell E-coli from Salmonella.
And even after cell-division resulting in multiplication, the single-celled organism REMAINS single celled. Is that not correct?
So - what kind of BULLoney are you trying to feed me?

But - like you said, the question is for EVOLUTION - not for me.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

How about those fossils eh?

Odontochelys semistestacea the oldest known turtle... only has half a shell. OMG what good is half a shell! It also has teeth no turtle has teeth OH NOES!

wa:do

maybe it's a duck?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My source quoted Ernst Mayr, an well-known evolutionist.
It was HE who said:
" 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."

This passage, above, is just an assertion by Ernst Mayr.
I wonder how come you never noticed that?
Your all-too-frequent usage of that quote informs me of the desperation for even a single confirmation or contradiction, with which you are consumed.

This is cute. The very beginning of the quote is not from Mayr. Is there a reason you left that bit out? Your researcher asked the question then answered it then proceeds to disagree with certain aspects of Natural Selection but it's obvious from his quote that he acknowledges the validity of the process itself.

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
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).

Mayr asserted nothing. Unless Lönnig is a hematologist how would he know what is or isn't an assertion? It's "his" assertion that Mayr is giving his opinion. How could Mayr do such a thing considering the evidence that establishes Sickle Cell disease and the Sickle Cell Trait, which you appeared to not even know the difference in a previous post, has been well established by biologist working in the area of Hematology.

Now you can drop that portion of the passage then next time you choose to use that quote - OK?

Only if you stop making bold assertions such as (Natural Selections does not exist and There's no such thing as Beneficial Mutations)........considering there is ample amount of evidence that supports it.

I am working on the rest of it.

How about you start here.
[youtube]xkwRTIKXaxg[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkwRTIKXaxg&feature=related

or even here,

[youtube]R_RXX7pntr8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

 

[newhope101]

So, tell us what is a bird. Give us a definition of "bird kind".

According to your previous definitions there are hundreds of "kinds" of birds. Now are you suggesting that anything that flies is a "bird"?
Silly little newhope... you are not reading the article and only picking a pretty picture without looking at it.
Silly huge PW believes all that she is told and easily ignores the contradictions
So, the lack of teeth is the most important feature is it? The hands, shoulders, feet, tail, sternum and the rest don't matter?
It seems you and your cohorts are the ones that continue to rely on false presumptions related to morphology.
Oh right... you can't see those and don't really care, so naturally they don't matter... it's only "common sense".

wa:do

The fact that some reseachers dare to challenge the status quo that you so ardamantly suggest is all sown up is strikingly suspicious evidence of some researchers not being happy with current evidence for dino/bird decent.

When your researchers work out whether or not birds decended from dinos or gliders or something else, you let us know. Until then you need to keep arch and your microraptor hidden from view because they may soon be in the garbage bin of delusionary evidence along with your other great ideas..

 

[painted wolf]

So now you are admitting your definition of kinds is useless...Progress can be made.

I actually look at the fossils and have some experience rather than just making some stuff up and hoping it floats. And yes, I am huge.

So, about that definition of "bird kind" you continue to conveniently ignore?
Is this "bird kind"?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

A lie. Its based on physics. No it is based on presumptiions. Did you hear about the live snail was dated to 27,000 years.

Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric dating methods. creation evolution young earth evidence old earth bible
What was the scoop on living snails that seemed to be 27,000 years old?
..and there are plenty more re lava misdated etc. Fortunately someone knew the true ages of these specimens and were able to contradict the findings. This is not the case with older fossils etc.

Lie.
No I am not a liar I just know more than you, apparently.
None of this compromises radiometric dating and even if it were possible for radioactive decay rates to alter to the degree you need to support creation that does not help you one iota because the fossils still show the same sequence by relative date as by absolute date. No matter how much you try and twist things a cambrian rock is older than a devonian rock even we allow accelerated decay which means they are each younger than the tens of millions of years old that they really are.
Creative Science 23 - Inorganic Radioactive Dating | Bible.org Blogs

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Even the deranged fantasy that somehow a billion year old rock is only 4,000 years old it does not change the fact that birds appear after land animals and that the cambrian preceded the devonian.
Why? There are humans around with dinos, nothing should surprise you.
Nor does it change the fact that new "kinds" by your own definition appear interspersed with other "kinds" that your book says happened on discrete and different days. There are fish "kinds" that appear after mammal "kinds".

The fossil record clearly shows that animals "according to their kind" were not created in the order specified in genesis and that the periods when these animals appear overlaps and are not separated into discrete timeframes.
The fossil record clearly shows nothing. If it did you would not need to keep changing your models and dates, constantly pushing them backwards with new finds.
It also shows that according to your definition of Kind man is not the last kind to appear on the earth. I believe the status of my definition is solid and does not need your acceptance

There are human footprints found along side dino footprints. No doubt this is challenged and explained away somewhere other wise it should have made huge headlines. This is the sort of information your researchers often find and hide, or go to great lengths to discredit someway. They hide or throw away as incredible every result or evidence that is impossible to resolve into a TOE framework.

TOE is the greatest lie ever inflicted on human society.


The Taylor Trail:
A series of 14 sequential human footprints on the same platform with at least 134 dinosaur tracks.

This rapidly flowing river runs through the middle of Dinosaur Valley State Park, famous for its dinosaur tracks. Not as well known is the fact that human tracks have also been found, not only in the same formation, but on the same bedding plane and in some cases overlapping the dinosaur tracks.



The Taylor Trail, as it normally appears in the river under water. Subsequent excavation has extended the trail to a total of fourteen tracks in a consistent right-left pattern. The entire sequence can be seen through the water in this 1994 photograph, even though a thin layer of mud obscures the details. A trail of three-toed dinosaur tracks can be seen crossing at an angle of approximately 30 degrees.

Taylor Trail: Evidence that Dinosaurs and Humans coexisted

 

[tumbleweed41]

There are human footprints found along side dino footprints.

How embarrassing for you....

 

[painted wolf]

Bwahahahaha.... Paluxy tracks.... Bwahahahaha... :biglaugh:

The Taylor Site "Man Tracks"
Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy

Paluxy Man

Newhope has gone from jumping sharks to jumping T.rexs.... :jiggy: :woohoo: :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

there are fake human footprints found along side dino footprints.

fify

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. now everyone knows newhope rejects science and embraces fraud, I'd say our conversation is over and we never need to pay any attention to her again. Good job, newhope.

 

[newhope101]

So now you are admitting your definition of kinds is useless...Progress can be made.

I actually look at the fossils and have some experience rather than just making some stuff up and hoping it floats. And yes, I am huge.

So, about that definition of "bird kind" you continue to conveniently ignore?
Is this "bird kind"?

wa:do

PW you are the one that puts yourself up as some sort of guru here.

You have not yet indicated which ancestry for birds you currently identify with.

While you are not appropriately convinced either way, being a biologist, then really my assertion that your bird ancestry claims are rubbish is settled.

You commit and maybe I'll talk to you. If you cannot commit then I say the whole bird ancestry topic may as well all be classed as rubbish. One huge PW's vote really means nothing anyway in the grand scheme of things. Still, you appear to be unable to commit. That is how good your evidence for bird ancestry appears to be!

 

[newhope101]

How embarrassing for you....

No excellent for me and embarassing for you. It again illustrates that you and your researchers have no idea about human ancestry along with any other species ancestry.

Good Hey!

 

[painted wolf]

PW you are the one that puts yourself up as some sort of guru here.

You have not yet indicated which ancestry for birds you currently identify with.

While you are not appropriately convinced either way, being a biologist, then really my assertion that your bird ancestry claims are rubbish is settled.

You commit and maybe I'll talk to you. If you cannot commit then I say the whole bird ancestry topic may as well all be classed as rubbish. One huge PW's vote really means nothing anyway in the grand scheme of things. Still, you appear to be unable to commit. That is how good your evidence for bird ancestry appears to be!

You have yet to present an alternative.... "glider" is not an ancestral creature and "dino" is not a lifestyle.... so stop blowing smoke and trying to avoid the issue.

you can't define "bird kind", if we are to label anything rubbish it's your empty arguments.

If you can't define "bird kind" you can't expect anything on their ancestry.

My vote may not count... but at least I bother to learn about the issue being voted on rather than flailing about madly and hoping to cast a ballot.

wa:do