What does the fossil record say?

[ninerbuff]

Why are creationists so incapable of using the quote function.

Because the refuse to evolve?

 

[newhope101]

Because the refuse to evolve?

You may evolve a little better if you could put 5 words together without a spelling mistake.


Look the thing is that discussions with either the educated or uneducated results in one research paper against another.

There are credentialed scientists, as previously discussed, as well as those very educated in the evolutionary fields that raise concerns in relation to TOE at varying levels.

You and your scientists speak to how this bone resembles that bone and how one creature speciates from this to that. You look to DNA. Your researchers are not clear themselves about what they are on about. Another example, instead of birds, is the hippopatamus.

The morphology and paleontology-based opinion of the relationship of whales to other mammals has also undergone considerable changes since the early 1990s. Fossils such as Rodhocetus, have been discovered that refute the notion that whales are derived from or are closely related to the mesonychids. Many morphologists[who?] and paleontologists support the notion of a clade called Cetartiodactyla that unites Cetacea + Artiodactyla. Many[who?] are not, however, in support of the hypothesis that Cetacea evolved from within the Artiodactyla. Under this definition, Artiodactyla remains a valid clade since artiodactyls evolved from a common ancestor separate from whales. Cetartiodactyla would represent a grandorder or superorder uniting the two orders.

The vast majority of phylogenetic analyses based on morphological characters have not uncovered a whale/hippo clade, but show Cetacea and Artiodactyla as distinct from one another.[citation needed] Features of the bones of the astragalus in the ankle region are cited as particular evidence for a monophyletic Artiodactyla. In any case, an origin of the Cetacea from within the Ungulata was proposed as early as 1900 by Frank Evers Beddard's A book of whales. Finding the anatomical and fossil record at that time insufficient to rule out other possibilities—such as the notion that whales are a basal lineage among placental mammals, or the popular theory relating them to terrestrial carnivores—Beddard remained not fully convinced himself, and thus his bold proposal was largely forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetartiodactyla
　
Now I do not care whom is right or wrong in these controversies above. What I wish to illustrate is that this evidence you put forward is about as clear as mud. You’ve got highly credentialed researchers, debating what’s what amongst themselves. What they agree on is ‘it all evolved’. If this is so clear, so obviously plain to the educated person, then why so much dispute. They are all looking at the same evidence both genetic, morphological and computer modelled and can still disagree hugely in relation to ancestry..

This is truly a fruitless exercise. PW hasn’t got a clue about her birds. So long as TOE is agreed on it seems this chaos is scientific, and dare not a creationist speak to it. Information will be quicker gained if your scientists were asking the right questions.

So what does the fossil evidence say? What ever you want it too. Therefore not much at all..seriously.

 

[camanintx]

Now I do not care whom is right or wrong in these controversies above. What I wish to illustrate is that this evidence you put forward is about as clear as mud. You’ve got highly credentialed researchers, debating what’s what amongst themselves. What they agree on is ‘it all evolved’. If this is so clear, so obviously plain to the educated person, then why so much dispute. They are all looking at the same evidence both genetic, morphological and computer modelled and can still disagree hugely in relation to ancestry.

Maybe because none of what's being debated has to do with the mechanisms of evolution.

You're insistence that science is a failure because it is willing to follow where the evidence leads merely illustrates your inability to understand what science is truly about and how it works. Come back when you're actually ready to learn something.

 

[painted wolf]

You may evolve a little better if you could put 5 words together without a spelling mistake.

I wouldn't throw stones there... this is first post you've had in a while without spelling errors. Your house is made of glass.

Look the thing is that discussions with either the educated or uneducated results in one research paper against another.

that is because the uneducated insists on saying they know what the paper or the argument is about... when it's pretty clear by their own ignorance that they don't.

There are credentialed scientists, as previously discussed, as well as those very educated in the evolutionary fields that raise concerns in relation to TOE at varying levels.

You and your scientists speak to how this bone resembles that bone and how one creature speciates from this to that. You look to DNA. Your researchers are not clear themselves about what they are on about. Another example, instead of birds, is the hippopatamus.

The morphology and paleontology-based opinion of the relationship of whales to other mammals has also undergone considerable changes since the early 1990s. Fossils such as Rodhocetus, have been discovered that refute the notion that whales are derived from or are closely related to the mesonychids. Many morphologists[who?] and paleontologists support the notion of a clade called Cetartiodactyla that unites Cetacea + Artiodactyla. Many[who?] are not, however, in support of the hypothesis that Cetacea evolved from within the Artiodactyla. Under this definition, Artiodactyla remains a valid clade since artiodactyls evolved from a common ancestor separate from whales. Cetartiodactyla would represent a grandorder or superorder uniting the two orders.

The vast majority of phylogenetic analyses based on morphological characters have not uncovered a whale/hippo clade, but show Cetacea and Artiodactyla as distinct from one another.[citation needed] Features of the bones of the astragalus in the ankle region are cited as particular evidence for a monophyletic Artiodactyla. In any case, an origin of the Cetacea from within the Ungulata was proposed as early as 1900 by Frank Evers Beddard's A book of whales. Finding the anatomical and fossil record at that time insufficient to rule out other possibilities—such as the notion that whales are a basal lineage among placental mammals, or the popular theory relating them to terrestrial carnivores—Beddard remained not fully convinced himself, and thus his bold proposal was largely forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetartiodactyla
　
Now I do not care whom is right or wrong in these controversies above. What I wish to illustrate is that this evidence you put forward is about as clear as mud. You’ve got highly credentialed researchers, debating what’s what amongst themselves. What they agree on is ‘it all evolved’. If this is so clear, so obviously plain to the educated person, then why so much dispute. They are all looking at the same evidence both genetic, morphological and computer modelled and can still disagree hugely in relation to ancestry..

This is truly a fruitless exercise. PW hasn’t got a clue about her birds. So long as TOE is agreed on it seems this chaos is scientific, and dare not a creationist speak to it. Information will be quicker gained if your scientists were asking the right questions.

So what does the fossil evidence say? What ever you want it too. Therefore not much at all..seriously.

wa:do

 

[Amill]

Now I do not care whom is right or wrong in these controversies above. What I wish to illustrate is that this evidence you put forward is about as clear as mud. You’ve got highly credentialed researchers, debating what’s what amongst themselves. What they agree on is ‘it all evolved’. If this is so clear, so obviously plain to the educated person, then why so much dispute. They are all looking at the same evidence both genetic, morphological and computer modelled and can still disagree hugely in relation to ancestry..

Because they don't have every single fossil from every single species that ever existed. It's impossible for us to have a 100% complete understanding of the ancestry of all life. I agree sometimes they speak a little too quickly and other scientists will jump on them and tear their ideas apart. But some of the evidence is so compelling that if evolution wasn't true then this creator must have purposely placed or created different life forms to make us think that all life was related. Why else would there be species of organisms that even fit the definition of a transitional fossil? Even if Archeopteryx isn't the exact species that birds descended from, why would god have created a species that scientists today still dispute whether it's "mostly" still similar to a raptor or a bird? Same with microraptor. Sure they may be offshoots of the actual descent towards birds today but why are they still there? Same with fossils that fit the model of a land mammal evolving into a fully aquatic mammal. Why do mammal-like reptiles exist? So the patterns that we find in the fossil record are just too many for anything to make sense but Evolution. And then we have the genetic similarities and ERVs....manatees with fingernails....ect

 

[newhope101]

PAINTEDWOLF... STILL YOU ARE UNABLE TO BACK A BIRD ANCESTOR AND TELL US WHY?

Can everyone see, particularly biblical creationists, that after shoving all her bird crap down creationists throat PW is clearly unable to take her stand and explain why one body of research is more robust than another. After all we all know how black and white PW having the answer to every evloutionary question.

We can all insult each other and post pictures of sharks, but PW is unable to rise to this challenge due, I expect, to a lack of genuine self proclaimed education. :sad4:

If PW was on her way to a PHD as claimed she would be able to speak to the bones and the DNA and why the non dino lineage for birds is crap or solid. She hasn't, can't, and is not prepared to have a go. As you can see the most I have got from PW in relation to my challenge re birds is cheap shots at me and hot air.

You all make a huge mistake to take what PW has to say as the unbiased interpretation of a truly credentialed upstanding scientist.

:thud::bat::magic:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You may evolve a little better if you could put 5 words together without a spelling mistake.

Pot meet kettle. You're not without your share of grammatical errors here. Neither is anyone else but it makes no sense pointing something so trivial out to a person. I suspect your comment to him was just trying to make cheap shot.

Now I do not care whom is right or wrong in these controversies above. What I wish to illustrate is that this evidence you put forward is about as clear as mud. You’ve got highly credentialed researchers, debating what’s what amongst themselves. What they agree on is ‘it all evolved’. If this is so clear, so obviously plain to the educated person, then why so much dispute. They are all looking at the same evidence both genetic, morphological and computer modelled and can still disagree hugely in relation to ancestry..

For those who understand the research it's no mystery. The thing that's interesting is that this debating from one scientist to another is not limited to the field of biology. We see this in practically every field of science.

So what does the fossil evidence say? What ever you want it too. Therefore not much at all..seriously.

You should hold this line of reasoning for your bible and the thousands upon thousands of denominations that are reading from the same source material and interpreting something completely different than the other.

 

[Amill]

She already made a reply regarding the post you made about birds evolving into dinos lol. Did you miss it?

 

[newhope101]

Oh I love this crap. Someone has a shot at me for not using quote and I shoot back and you lot have a melt down. Go tell someone that cares!

While you're at it, go tell PW she doesn't know what she's on about.

 

[painted wolf]

PAINTEDWOLF... STILL YOU ARE UNABLE TO BACK A BIRD ANCESTOR AND TELL US WHY?

Can everyone see, particularly biblical creationists, that after shoving all her bird crap down creationists throat PW is clearly unable to take her stand and explain why one body of research is more robust than another. After all we all know how black and white PW having the answer to every evloutionary question. (careful, typo!)

We can all insult each other and post pictures of sharks, but PW is unable to rise to this challenge due, I expect, to a lack of genuine self proclaimed education. :sad4:

If PW was on her way to a PHD as claimed she would be able to speak to the bones and the DNA and why the non dino lineage for birds is crap or solid. She hasn't, can't, and is not prepared to have a go. As you can see the most I have got from PW in relation to my challenge re birds is cheap shots at me and hot air.

You all make a huge mistake to take what PW has to say as the unbiased interpretation of a truly credentialed upstanding scientist.

Did you miss it? I've responded to you a few times now. :sarcastic
Your only response has been to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen.

That and sling more insults... but this is no surprise, as this is your whole argument.

So.... are you going to define "bird kind", produce a Cambrian bird or even a viable alternative ancestor for birds?

Are you going to be able to explain why creationists can't agree on what the word "Day" means?

Why the hypocrisy? :sad4:

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Because they don't have every single fossil from every single species that ever existed. It's impossible for us to have a 100% complete understanding of the ancestry of all life. I agree sometimes they speak a little too quickly and other scientists will jump on them and tear their ideas apart. But some of the evidence is so compelling that if evolution wasn't true then this creator must have purposely placed or created different life forms to make us think that all life was related. Why else would there be species of organisms that even fit the definition of a transitional fossil? Even if Archeopteryx isn't the exact species that birds descended from, why would god have created a species that scientists today still dispute whether it's "mostly" still similar to a raptor or a bird? Same with microraptor. Sure they may be offshoots of the actual descent towards birds today but why are they still there? Same with fossils that fit the model of a land mammal evolving into a fully aquatic mammal. Why do mammal-like reptiles exist? So the patterns that we find in the fossil record are just too many for anything to make sense but Evolution. And then we have the genetic similarities and ERVs....manatees with fingernails....ect

Thankyou. Finally an intelligent response.

Mammal like reptiles exist because there is a great variety in the creation. Just say God did create life, do you suppose He should reinvent every hand, leg, eye form, to be totally different from any other organism. This does not have to be the case. Lets take another example let's say life arose many times and no horizontal gene transfer occurred. Let's say a few lines 'evolved' into todays life, what do you think their DNA or morphological structures would look like? I believe any answer would be guessing. However there is no reason to believe that life would look any different than it does today under the microscope or in morphological similarities between kinds.

Additionally, evidence produced by way of evolutionary presumption, has shown shared traits are not indicative of close ancestry at all, and DNA contradicts morphology in many cases. I have posted the hippo clade debarkle already as an illustration of well credentialed researchers clearly in dispute while examining and having access to the same evidence.

My point is not that you have not sorted an answer to every evolutionary question.

My point is about the proclamation of such convincing evidence for proposed ancestry and TOE that anyone that is skeptical must be cognitively challenged or dysfunctional in some way.

I believe that those that are skeptical of the evidence for TOE are not stupid at all and have justified reason to be so. Your scientists are not stupid when they debate each other and disagree with each others findings. Creationists are not stupid either for choosing to not accept the status quo re TOE as irrefuteable and undeniable. Your ancestries just change too much to alledge the current 'common thinking' must be the final word on anything.

Here is a couple of links to reflect some of my thinking. It is not about if you can refute the info in the links, nor if I am right or wrong or anywhere in the middle. Why? Because I can go off and find some research that again refutes your point....to what end? None.

The majority of your researchers ascribe to TOE although they debate the points. Neither you or I can justifiably have the last and final word. This is further backed by the fact that PW is also unable to take sides in the bird ancestry debate. Why? Because the best anyone can do is put research up against research, again to no end at this time.

I say one is not stupid to be skeptical of TOE and the produced 'evidence', fossil or otherwise, nor are you stupid for choosing to accept it. I say it is about choice and not intelligence.



In A Whale of Trouble
The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

 

[painted wolf]

Shouldn't it be about making an intelligent choice?

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

Mammal like reptiles exist because there is a great variety in the creation. Just say God did create life, do you suppose He should reinvent every hand, leg, eye form, to be totally different from any other organism. This does not have to be the case. Lets take another example let's say life arose many times and no horizontal gene transfer occurred. Let's say a few lines 'evolved' into todays life, what do you think their DNA or morphological structures would look like? I believe any answer would be guessing. However there is no reason to believe that life would look any different than it does today under the microscope or in morphological similarities between kinds.

What about organisms that are poorly designed for their environment? "Great variety in creation" can explain some shared structures, but it really fails to hold up in organisms that have evolved away from their ancestors.

Cetaceans are the easiest example. For god to not want to reinvent everything, he could simply make cetaceans like fish. Instead, he makes them like mammals. This means that in addition to having mammalian bone structure

they also have mammalian lungs. They can't breathe in the environment in which they live! Why does god hate Cetaceans?

Additionally, evidence produced by way of evolutionary presumption, has shown shared traits are not indicative of close ancestry at all, and DNA contradicts morphology in many cases. I have posted the hippo clade debarkle already as an illustration of well credentialed researchers clearly in dispute while examining and having access to the same evidence.

What you're basically saying here is "remember that link I showed you, that you all thoroughly refuted? Pretend you didn't refute it and you can now see how it has proven you wrong".

My point is not that you have not sorted an answer to every evolutionary question.

My point is about the proclamation of such convincing evidence for proposed ancestry and TOE that anyone that is skeptical must be cognitively challenged or dysfunctional in some way.

There are a great many things about the mass/energy relationship that we don't know. But we do know that there's a relationship. You can't say "you don't know everything, so you're not allowed to keep investigating".

I believe that those that are skeptical of the evidence for TOE are not stupid at all and have justified reason to be so. Your scientists are not stupid when they debate each other and disagree with each others findings. Creationists are not stupid either for choosing to not accept the status quo re TOE as irrefuteable and undeniable. Your ancestries just change too much to alledge the current 'common thinking' must be the final word on anything.

1) Creationists actually have a long history of being really stupid.
2) Scientists debate all findings, it's how they ensure that the findings are accurate. It's called rigor. That our understandings of the nuances will change is a given, but that doesn't mean the whole theory goes out the window.

Here is a couple of links to reflect some of my thinking. It is not about if you can refute the info in the links, nor if I am right or wrong or anywhere in the middle. Why? Because I can go off and find some research that again refutes your point....to what end? None.

The majority of your researchers ascribe to TOE although they debate the points. Neither you or I can justifiably have the last and final word. This is further backed by the fact that PW is also unable to take sides in the bird ancestry debate. Why? Because the best anyone can do is put research up against research, again to no end at this time.

I say one is not stupid to be skeptical of TOE and the produced 'evidence', fossil or otherwise, nor are you stupid for choosing to accept it. I say it is about choice and not intelligence.

In A Whale of Trouble
The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

Way to disprove a children's book. :clap

 

[painted wolf]

Why would God give a whale a four chambered stomach?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh I love this crap. Someone has a shot at me for not using quote and I shoot back and you lot have a melt down. Go tell someone that cares!

No melt down...just pointing out the obvious attempts you make to belittle a person over something we're all guilty of....

While you're at it, go tell PW she doesn't know what she's on about.

She's answered you a few times already...

 

[camanintx]

Oh I love this crap. Someone has a shot at me for not using quote and I shoot back and you lot have a melt down. Go tell someone that cares!

Hypocrisy is less tolerated than idiocy. You have been asked repeatedly to learn how to use quotes so you're posts are more legible. You're quip about spelling was just being petty.

 

[camanintx]

Mammal like reptiles exist because there is a great variety in the creation. Just say God did create life, do you suppose He should reinvent every hand, leg, eye form, to be totally different from any other organism.

If humans are not decended from fish, why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve begin in the brain, travel down into the the thorax, loop around the aorta, and then back up the neck where it innervates the larynx? If humans are not decended from animals with tails, then why do we have the coccyx? If whales did not once walk on land, why do they have hip bones?

Common design may be a valid alternative for much of what we see in the diversity of life, but until it can explain everything we know, it cannot even begin to replace the Theory of Evolution.

 

[outhouse]

anyone who believes in creation simply lacks education, if they have a education there is no exuse. They have mental issues.

this is my opinion

 

[newhope101]

No PW has not answered my question at all. She has not thrown her towel behind either side of the bird ancestry debate and explained why one body of evidence is more robust than another. All she has done is belittle me and spoken to asides.

In fact I see none of you speaking to this bird ancestry...only posting more bones that at any moment may mean something totally different to you, just like arch.

The same goes for your fish to human, camanintx, and anything else. Same traits are not a sign of ancestry. You lot have proven it and still you perservere in clinging to this relentlessly.

It does not matter what you say, nor how you defend yourselves. Some very smart scientists do not agree at varying degrees with the status quo. Go back and read who they are.

This is how unrobust and inconsistent your evidence is re mammals:

The traditional view is that: mammals only took over the medium- to large-sized ecological niches in the Cenozoic, after the extinction of the dinosaurs; but then they diversified very quickly; for example the earliest known bat dates from about 50M years ago, only 15M years after the extinction of the dinosaurs.[13]
On the other hand recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100M to 85M years ago, but that modern families first appeared in the late Eocene and early Miocene[14] But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous[11]

Mammal - Fossil Wiki, the paleontology wiki

Also see Monotreme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Taxonomy.


Humans have the same amount of neck bones as giraffe but we do not have a close common ancestor. Mammals and birds are warm blooded, but mammals did not evolve from birds, nor birds from mammals. Flying fish could already glide 160 meters and are not the immediate ancestor to birds or arboreal gliders, either, for now, that is!!!!!


And what does your selective sweep modelling tell us...

However, comparing genomes of different populations from the 1000 Genomes Project detected only subtle differences in allele frequencies, representative of small changes over time rather than rapid sweeps.

"It dovetails quite well with findings coming out of medical mapping studies, which also suggest that many loci of small effect influence disease risk," Przeworski said. "These findings call into question how much more there is to find using the selective sweep approach, and should also make us skeptical of how many of the findings to date will turn out to be validated."
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution

So this brain of a researcher is also skeptical about your modelling. Of course he may be an idiot also, according to you pretensive thrown dwellers and pretenders.

None of your modelling is robust and still you cling to this straw grabbing as your only means of providing evidence. Good for you who have faith!

Regardless, I have posted evidence re birds that your clever researchers can not agree on. Same evidence, different hypothesis. I am sure they think of each other as idiots also, so your insults to me are meaningless. Obviously the researcher that is contesting the current bird from dino line is not convinced either. Perhaps you would like to call that group of scientists idiots also. You are really calling yourselves idiots by implication..that's the hillarious part.

So for now you can stick archaeopteryx when the sun don't shine and apologise to all the creationsist you belittled that disputed the evidence. They were correct to be skeptical, regardless of who is right or wrong in the end, and shown up the pretenders here!

 

[painted wolf]

Of course I have.... you just keep ignoring it and hoping I'll endlessly repeat myself. Or that you can get away with claiming I didn't, unfortunately for you most (if not all) people reading this thread have been paying attention.

wa:do