What does the fossil record say?

[outhouse]

You have not dealt with abiogenesis yet. So - how about it?

Isnt this the fossil thread??

 

[painted wolf]

What? You choose to duck MY questions and expect me to answer yours?
Ain't gonna happen.
You have not dealt with abiogenesis yet. So - how about it?

The topic of this thread is "the fossil record", if you want to talk about abiogenesis there are other threads for that.

let's not derail this thread any worse than it is already.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

What? You choose to duck MY questions and expect me to answer yours?
Ain't gonna happen.
You have not dealt with abiogenesis yet. So - how about it?

I guess if you're interested in abiogenesis, you should start a thread to discuss it. This thread is about fossils. We don't have fossils of abiogenesis. As far as I know, unlike evolution of new species, abiogenesis has not been figured out yet--only interesting hypotheses.

 

[Nepenthe]

I told you what I believe so that you do not get sidetracked into trying to prove the folly of so-called "creationists" and applying them to me. Just to save you the time and effort.

You make a great deal about my use of computers while attempting to boost the pervasive use of science in their production.
Well - take a good look at the results of all that electronic technology you're so proud of:
Basel Action Network E-Waste Video

Watch the video all the way. It is important.
Google "Basel Action Network" and see for yourself how much damage is being done by this glorious bit of genius.
See what happens to your hard drive and that of so many governmental and educational institutions when they are shipped off to India, China and Nigeria, among other places who have men capable of gleaning all of the private information ever recorded about you and everything about all the people you know.

What a nightmare!
It all comes back down on you.

You cannot win in this science v. scripture scenario.

You're making the common mistake of assuming science and technology are synonymous. Science is the application of the scientific method; it's a system of inquiry that best allows an unbiased investigation of the universe. What you are calling science is more accurately called applied science or technology. Technology is simply the application of scientific discoveries.

If you're arguing there are negative consequences of technology as shown in your link, well, yeah, of course there are. But the fault lies more with the engineers that build the technology and/or the social/political attitudes that apply those machines or ideas maliciously or fail to consider the impact they'll have on the environment. Science discovers how atoms work, engineers build nuclear weapons, politicians, influenced by a host of societal pressures including religion, implement those weapons and fail to adequately deal with the inevitable harm and waste generated.

 

[DeistPrimate]

This was where I ended up posting back on this thread when I tried to create a new thread on Abiogenesis for Wilsoncole to take the off topic discussion to but I apparently had a brain fart - so sorry.

 

[DeistPrimate]

What? You choose to duck MY questions and expect me to answer yours?
Ain't gonna happen.
You have not dealt with abiogenesis yet. So - how about it?

Wilsoncole

I have started a thread on abiogenesis and invite you to post your questions there.

 

[wilsoncole]

You're making the common mistake of assuming science and technology are synonymous. Science is the application of the scientific method; it's a system of inquiry that best allows an unbiased investigation of the universe. What you are calling science is more accurately called applied science or technology. Technology is simply the application of scientific discoveries.

If you're arguing there are negative consequences of technology as shown in your link, well, yeah, of course there are. But the fault lies more with the engineers that build the technology and/or the social/political attitudes that apply those machines or ideas maliciously or fail to consider the impact they'll have on the environment. Science discovers how atoms work, engineers build nuclear weapons, politicians, influenced by a host of societal pressures including religion, implement those weapons and fail to adequately deal with the inevitable harm and waste generated.

This Reply should be directed to Autodicdac, since it was he/she that made the connection between my use of computers and science.
Will you do that - please?

 

[fantome profane]

I have started a thread on abiogenesis

um, no actually you haven’t. But it is a good idea and you should do that.

 

[wilsoncole]

I've noted some off topic posts in other threads by creationists interjecting their incredulity about abiogenesis as if it being falsified would negate all of evolutionary theory. So I thought it prudent to create a thread they can address this issue appropriately and on topic.

So let's just begin, for the sake of argument, on the premise that abiogenesis is impossible.

Before you build a high-rise structure, it it necessary to build a foundation - right?
If that requirement is ignored, the entire structure will collapse.
The evolutionary structure is collossal. Yet - it has no foundation!
For that reason alone, any defense of evolution is inadequate. And unreasonable.
You cannot account for the arrival of that first unicellular organism, yet you insist that it existed and blossomed in what we are today.
Like you suggest, abiogenesis is impossible and proven to be so.
If the Miller experiment of 1953 had succeeded, it would only have proved that life was created - in this case, by Miller.

So what? How does this address the strong genetic evidence for descent through common ancestry of all life (just one example - homologous hoc mutations between us and the other Great Apes)?

Is it possible that you are misreading whatever "evidence" you think you have?
Yes or No!

How does this address transitional forms in the fossil record (just one example - fossil Hominid species clearly not sapiens but sharing traits between us and still earlier forms like Homo erectus the australopithecines and ardipithecus)?

What "transitional forms?" There is no such thing! Available fossils do not lend themselves to the theory of evolution.
If gradual changes did, in fact, take place, covering billions of years, the earth should be saturated with billions of such "transitional" fossil forms.

The fact is - it is not! If tremendous quantities of even ONE "transitional" fossil could be found in the earth, you might have a leg to stand on. As it is - you don't.

"Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks." (Creation chap.5 pp 55-56)

You have lined the route of animate transitions with billions of years so that your conslusions are seen as correct simply because they cannot be disproven.

A stacked deck of cards is totally dishonest.

 

[fantome profane]

Before you build a high-rise structure, it it necessary to build a foundation - right?
If that requirement is ignored, the entire structure will collapse.
The evolutionary structure is collossal. Yet - it has no foundation!

Bad analogy. It is more like trying to study a building that has already been built. If you find yourself on the top floor of a fifty-story building you can certainly start studying the layout of that floor. And if you find yourself on the top story of a fifty-story building you can draw the logical conclusion that there must be a ground floor even if you have not actually seen it. And you can certainly continue to study that building from the top down.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Bad analogy. It is more like trying to study a building that has already been built. If you find yourself on the top floor of a fifty-story building you can certainly start studying the layout of that floor. And if you find yourself on the top story of a fifty-story building you can draw the logical conclusion that there must be a ground floor even if you have not actually seen it. And you can certainly continue to study that building from the top down.

Well said!
Being at the top floor of the building, we have ample evidence that it exists, and we know there is a foundation. Science is working its way down the floors to discover that foundation.

 

[Autodidact]

This Reply should be directed to Autodicdac, since it was he/she that made the connection between my use of computers and science.
Will you do that - please?

No science, no applied science, no computer. My suggestion to you would be to obtain a nice rock, chisel your message on the side, then get a guy on a donkey to ride around and read to everyone. Planning on answering my questions anytime?

 

[Autodidact]

Before you build a high-rise structure, it it necessary to build a foundation - right?
If that requirement is ignored, the entire structure will collapse.
The evolutionary structure is collossal. Yet - it has no foundation!

You're mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation of ToE. The foundation is the evidence on which it's based. Here's what I'll do. I'll spot you abiogenesis. I'll stipulate that God magically zapped the first living thing into existence. I give up. You're right. You win.

Now we can talk about how we got from that first living thing to the variety of species we see on earth.

I say the best way to figure that out is by using the scientific method. You say it's by reading an arbitrarily selected ancient holy book of a Canaanite tribe.

How does that method work in other areas? Does it accurately describe the configuration of the planets, moon and stars? Does it properly explain where rain comes from? How about disease, it is accurate about the source of disease and how to treat it? In general, which more accurately explains, models and predicts the world, your ancient text, or modern science?

What "transitional forms?" There is no such thing! Available fossils do not lend themselves to the theory of evolution.

Without using the scientific method, how could you possibly know?

If gradual changes did, in fact, take place, covering billions of years, the earth should be saturated with billions of such "transitional" fossil forms.

Actually, it is.

The fact is - it is not! If tremendous quantities of even ONE "transitional" fossil could be found in the earth, you might have a leg to stand on. As it is - you don't.

Every fossil ever found, and there are tremendous quantities of them, is a transitional fossil.

"Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks." (Creation chap.5 pp 55-56)

 

[DeistPrimate]

You're mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation of ToE. The foundation is the evidence on which it's based. Here's what I'll do. I'll spot you abiogenesis. I'll stipulate that God magically zapped the first living thing into existence. I give up. You're right. You win. Now we can talk about how we got from that first living thing to the variety of species we see on earth.

This is pretty much what I stated in the first post of the abiogenesis thread I thought I started but apparently didn't as fantôme profane pointed out (don't know how I accidentally just posted on this thread again - sorry about that). I did see entering the forum this time there's already an Abiogenesis thread in Science Vs Religion, apparently WIlsoncole has already won that one eh?

You cannot account for the arrival of that first unicellular organism, yet you insist that it existed and blossomed in what we are today.

Apparently you're arguing the first unicellular organism never existed even if created by fiat?

Is it possible that you are misreading whatever "evidence" you think you have? Yes or No!

I would have to ask you the same question, you write as though your beliefs couldn't possibly be wrong, even the ones you just plain make up like the following...

What "transitional forms?" There is no such thing! Available fossils do not lend themselves to the theory of evolution.
If gradual changes did, in fact, take place, covering billions of years, the earth should be saturated with billions of such "transitional" fossil forms.
The fact is - it is not! If tremendous quantities of even ONE "transitional" fossil could be found in the earth, you might have a leg to stand on. As it is - you don't.

If you can't see a transitional form between earlier therapod dinosaurs and birds in archaeopteryx or earlier primates and Homos in Ardipithecus or the Australopithecines you are simply refusing to participate in rational thinking.

Only a tiny fraction of animal remains become fossils, it's only because so many different forms have been around for so many eons that we have as many fossils as we do, contained in layers of rock which took deep time to form around them. I've read some creationists claim the way certain rock strata are warped shows quick hardening in a flood-formed shape but the fossils inside of such strata are also warped since the reality is rock and its contents can get warped without cracking but only by tremendous pressure and deep time. It only proves the layers weren't laid down anywhere near close to the same time.

There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes...

We have many examples in nature of animals with eyes descended from earlier stages of eye development in other animals. Planerians have eye spots which simply can discern light, little more than a patch of photo-receptive cells yet offering a survival trait to the worm. The nautilus has eyes missing key features of eyes in other mullosks but still work well enough.

For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes.

You should read S.J.Gould's Eight Little Piggies, Dr. Gould describes how the fossil record documents the development of limbs from basal bones and strut rods in fish lobed fins.

and gills changing into lungs.

Gills didn't change into lungs, lungs evolved from ballast bladders which originally were fed gases from the blood stream but then worked backwards to get O2 from air into the blood stream.

There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws scales changing into feathers mouths changing into horny beaks

Dinosaurs were a transitional Class between the Reptilia and Aves and all these changes you cite are represented in the Dinosauria. Modern true endothermic reptile scales are not homologous to to bird feathers but scute scales like those found on bird legs certainly are. We know now many dinosaurs had feathers, some already had beaks as did their reptilian ancestors (my box turtle sports a beauty).

At least I got you back on topic.

 

[wilsoncole]

Bad analogy. It is more like trying to study a building that has already been built. If you find yourself on the top floor of a fifty-story building you can certainly start studying the layout of that floor. And if you find yourself on the top story of a fifty-story building you can draw the logical conclusion that there must be a ground floor even if you have not actually seen it. And you can certainly continue to study that building from the top down.

Umm - you're kidding - right? You didn't think this one through. The analogy is perfect. Its YOUR take on it that is truly unreasonable.
Look at it again:
"Before you build a high-rise structure, it it necessary to build a foundation - right?
If that requirement is ignored, the entire structure will collapse."
Are you actually saying that a foundation is not necessary? Can you direct me to ANY high-rise structure, anywhere, that has no foundation?
Tell me - how do you get to the top floor of a 50-story building that could not be built without a foundation - a ground floor? On the wings of a colossal presupposition?

This is hilarious!

I am going to keep a copy of this post on a word processor to show my friends.

 

[JustWondering2]

Wilson, it's you who doesn't get it!!
His statemant was "Building that's already been built" by whatever means! We are studying a structure that has existed in tack on whatever foundation for millions of years to determine "HOW" it's built, not "WHO" built it! Kind of like looking at a cliff of the Grand Canyon, noticing the shear wall and all it's layers, then determining how they were layed down and what they are made of. What they are setting on is not that important or even needed to determine each layers composition! Wouldn't you agree?
Just Wondering

 

[DeistPrimate]

It always amazes me how people who can't grasp the relatively simpler concepts involved with how science had determined the common ancestry of all life will jump the chasm into claiming they understand concepts relating to abiogenesis, which involve pre-requisite training in fields arguably more difficult than those required for standard biology.

 

[Amill]

Umm - you're kidding - right? You didn't think this one through. The analogy is perfect. Its YOUR take on it that is truly unreasonable.
Look at it again:
"Before you build a high-rise structure, it it necessary to build a foundation - right?
If that requirement is ignored, the entire structure will collapse."
Are you actually saying that a foundation is not necessary? Can you direct me to ANY high-rise structure, anywhere, that has no foundation?
Tell me - how do you get to the top floor of a 50-story building that could not be built without a foundation - a ground floor? On the wings of a colossal presupposition?

This is hilarious!

I am going to keep a copy of this post on a word processor to show my friends.

His analogy doesn't say there is no foundation lol... It's just that we don't know exactly what the foundation is. We're not the ones that built the 50-story building, all we know is that we start at the top floor(which represents the present point in time in the history of life on earth), and we're stuck having to examine the floors under us because we were not around while they were built. To many people, especially those in the scientific community, the evidence uncovered suggests that there are patterns in the fossils found that more than likely mean different species are related to one another. So scientists make predictions on the various lines and fossils that should be found, and we find more and more examples that match what was predicted. But not all predictions are met, and many fossils change our views on the various lineages, but the patterns we still see and the predicted fossils we do find are just too convincing to be coincidental or purposely set there by a creator. We still don't know enough about the foundation and many of the lower floors, but it doesn't change the fact that the patterns we find on most of the floors are still just too convincing to us that it really doesn't matter what the foundation for life was.

 

[JustWondering2]

Thanks Amill!! You did a better job of saying what I tried to say.

 

[outhouse]

It always amazes me how people who can't grasp the relatively simpler concepts involved with how science had determined the common ancestry of all life will jump the chasm into claiming they understand concepts relating to abiogenesis, which involve pre-requisite training in fields arguably more difficult than those required for standard biology.

And if its not that, they view evolution as a ladder missing its whole meaning due to there blatant ignorance