What does the fossil record say?

[newhope101]

are you even able to give an arguement without copy-pasting a wikipediapage?

You evolutionists are in a real mess aren't you? If creationists don't supply evidence you have a squark and if they do you still squark...go figure..another name for evolutionists might be squarkers.

I see you can't refute the evidence that shows your evidence is crap, so the next best thing is to make a fool of yourself.

Congratulations.

 

[outhouse]

You evolutionists are in a real mess aren't you? If creationists don't supply evidence you have a squark and if they do you still squark...go figure..another name for evolutionists might be squarkers.

I see you can't refute the evidence that shows your evidence is crap, so the next best thing is to make a fool of yourself.

Congratulations.

you have supplied nothing as far as a hypothisis

you have been caught lieing

you have been educated as to proper interpreteation of scinetific results


you just keep on making allot of noise with no merit or substance.

 

[Autodidact]

You evolutionists are in a real mess aren't you? If creationists don't supply evidence you have a squark and if they do you still squark...go figure..another name for evolutionists might be squarkers.

I see you can't refute the evidence that shows your evidence is crap, so the next best thing is to make a fool of yourself.

Congratulations.

Evidence? Someone presented some evidence for creationism? That's odd, I haven't even seen a hypothesis yet.

I did propose one for you, but you failed to respond. Is your hypothesis magic poofing? Or something else? As soon as you let us know, we can begin to figure out what evidence might support it.

 

[newhope101]

Hey tumbleweed 41, I love it when you indicate your own researchers are fools because I agree. You are commenting like as if this guy is the only researcher with this view and this informs me that you are NOT familiar with your own recent developments.

When a creationist gives an opinion you belittle them. When a creationist speaks through researchers that are more credentialed than anyone here you belittle the researcher. Can you not see what fools you make of your own sciences?

In actual fact you do not have evidence of the evolution of the eye. What you have are theories of how the eye evolved. You are unable to tell the difference any more.

Wiki Evolution of the eye.


Vertebrates and octopuses developed the camera eye independently. In the vertebrate version the nerve fibers pass in front of the retina, and there is a blind spot where the nerves pass through the retina. In the vertebrate example, 4 represents the blind spot, which is notably absent from the octopus eye. In vertebrates, 1 represents the retina and 2 is the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in the octopus eye, 1 and 2 represent the nerve fibers and retina respectively.

It is now speculated by your researchers that the eye has evolved independently in different organisms. So the proof has really vanished. The eye is assumed to have evolved because with the presumption of evolution it simply had to. However, you have no proof that satisfies the dilemma of irreducible complexity other than your theories.

See below. I have underlined the operative words that illustrate all you have is assumptions and "PROBABLY".

Wiki:
Lenses evolved independently in a number of lineages. Simple 'pit-eyes' probably developed lenses to improve the amount of light that reached the retina; the focal length of an early lobopod with lens-containing simple eyes focussed the image behind the retina, so while no part of the image could be brought into focus, the intensity of light allowed the organism to inhabit deeper (and therefore darker) waters.[26] A subsequent increase of the lens's refractive index probably resulted in an in-focus image being formed.[26]

The development of the lens in camera-type eyes probably followed a different trajectory. The transparent cells over a pinhole eye's aperture split into two layers, with liquid in between.[citation needed] The liquid originally served as a circulatory fluid for oxygen, nutrients, wastes, and immune functions, allowing greater total thickness and higher mechanical protection. In addition, multiple interfaces between solids and liquids increase optical power, allowing wider viewing angles and greater imaging resolution. Again, the division of layers may have originated with the shedding of skin; intracellular fluid may infill naturally depending on layer depth.[citation needed]

 

[Autodidact]

It is now speculated by your researchers that the eye has evolved independently in different organisms. So the proof has really vanished.

Proof of what? How does independent evolution negate evolution? That doesn't even make sense.

The eye is assumed to have evolved because with the presumption of evolution it simply had to.

No, not presumed, concluded, based on the evidence. You know, the opposite of a presumtion.

However, you have no proof that satisfies the dilemma of irreducible complexity other than your theories.

1. Not proof, evidence. Please try to remember this, it's getting irritating repeating myself.
2. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Every possible intermediate stage of the eye exists right now in a living organism.

See below. I have underlined the operative words that illustrate all you have is assumptions and "PROBABLY".

Wiki:
Lenses evolved independently in a number of lineages. Simple 'pit-eyes' probably developed lenses to improve the amount of light that reached the retina; the focal length of an early lobopod with lens-containing simple eyes focussed the image behind the retina, so while no part of the image could be brought into focus, the intensity of light allowed the organism to inhabit deeper (and therefore darker) waters.[26] A subsequent increase of the lens's refractive index probably resulted in an in-focus image being formed.[26]

The development of the lens in camera-type eyes probably followed a different trajectory. The transparent cells over a pinhole eye's aperture split into two layers, with liquid in between.[citation needed] The liquid originally served as a circulatory fluid for oxygen, nutrients, wastes, and immune functions, allowing greater total thickness and higher mechanical protection. In addition, multiple interfaces between solids and liquids increase optical power, allowing wider viewing angles and greater imaging resolution. Again, the division of layers may have originated with the shedding of skin; intracellular fluid may infill naturally depending on layer depth.[citation needed]

That word, "probably" is how you know it's science. You do know something about how science works, right? So I'm sure you understand how important the word "probably" is to science?

 

[DeistPrimate]

WWWS

What would Wiki say?

 

[newhope101]

you have supplied nothing as far as a hypothisis

you have been caught lieing

you have been educated as to proper interpreteation of scinetific results


you just keep on making allot of noise with no merit or substance.

I have provided heaps of evidence. IT's more like you have no further intelligent refute to back up your skulls.

You have learnt that about 10 years ago we were all decendent from knuckle walkers and now magically we are not, haven't you? I don't think you have even grasped this concept yet.

Here's some work on Lucy which you also appear to be totally oblivious too:

Disinherited ancestor: Lucy's kind may occupy evolutionary side branch.

About 30 years ago, African excavations yielded the 3.2-million-year-old partial skeleton that became known as Lucy. The find, along with other fossils unearthed Unearthed is the name of a Triple J project to find and "dig up" (hence the name) hidden talent in regional Australia.

Unearthed has had three incarnations - they first visited each region of Australia where Triple J had a transmitter - 41 regions in all. soon after, belongs to the species Australopithecus afarensis Noun 1. Australopithecus afarensis - fossils found in Ethiopia; from 3.5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus, genus Australopithecus - extinct genus of African hominid . Many scientists regard these creatures as ancestors of both the lineage that led to modern humans and of another, now-extinct evolutionary lineage known as robust australopithecines.

However, an analysis of an A. afarensis jaw from a skull discovered in 2002 near Lucy's site in Ethiopia supports a longstanding minority viewpoint that Lucy's kind occupied only a side branch of human evolution. A. afarensis evolved into the relatively small-brained, large-jawed robust australopithecines but didn't contribute to the evolution of modern people, says anthropologist Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv University (TAU, אוניברסיטת תל־אביב, את"&#1488 is Israel's largest on-site university. .

 

[Autodidact]

I have provided heaps of evidence. .

You did? For what hypothesis?

 

[outhouse]

All I have seen is science twisted to meet her needs, and serious quote mining

 

[David M]

I have provided heaps of evidence.

Yes, you have provided heaps of evidence for evolution (while saying "No its not").

You have provided zero evidence for creationism.

What you don't seem able to comprehend is that minor alterations to the pattern of the history of the evolution of species is no challenge to the explanation of how the diversity of species occurs or that it did occur.

All your Lucy cut and paste does is argue for a minor modification in the history of common descent from the fossil record (which has always been based on partial evidence) and does nothing to challenge the principle of common descent.

 

[camanintx]

Here's some work on Lucy which you also appear to be totally oblivious too:

Disinherited ancestor: Lucy's kind may occupy evolutionary side branch.

Why don't you post the whole article instead of just the part that you agree with?

Other researchers disagree. The ramus doesn't offer enough information for scientists to reconstruct broad evolutionary relationships among Lucy's kind and other ancient species, remarks anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley.

"Rather than trying to use the top edge of this jaw in such a dubious manner, [Rak's group] would have done better to describe and analyze the important new skull that goes with it," White says.

 

[camanintx]

The sad fact is that there is evidence that tiktaalik was not the first tetrapoda and if you were not so stupid you would know this is research done elsewhere that was reported on in a newspaper.

So how does evidence that tetrapods evolved earlier than previously thought prove that they didn't evolve?

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact..are you saying that you do not accept these findings of tetrapod footprints being found that could not be tiktaaliks?

No, I don't think I said that.

How unusual for you lot to only accept what suits you! You aren't the first nor will you be the last.

It's a shame what you accept or don't means absolutely nothing in the big world of evidence.

I know where these creatures came from as they were created. That's my hypothesis.

Well we're in agreement then. We all agree they were created, and we're arguing about nothing. The question is, HOW were they created? We agree with modern science, that they were created in the manner described by ToE. HOW do you say they were created?

What's your theory for tetrapods Auto...You go tell these researchers what's what according to Autodidact seeing as you are so full of yourself that you think you may have the answer.

what specifically do you want to know about tetrapods?
btw, I'm not a Biologist, and have no special knowledge in this area, so in general, when you ask what is my theory, it's whatever the currently accept mainstream consensus theory in Biology is. Other than that, I don't have one.

What's yours?

Go on go tell 'em that they are spoiling your fun and they are all wrong because Auto has everything put into nice little boxes and how dare these researchers spoil your delusionary evidence.

The sad fact is that there is evidence that tiktaalik was not the first tetrapoda and if you were not so stupid you would know this is research done elsewhere that was reported on in a newspaper.

Oh, I'm sure that's right. I doubt that Tiktaalik was the first tetrapod. In fact, we may never find the first tetrapod; the odds are always against it.

Here it is again in Wiki. The research used is cited in Wiki. Go learn something. You're a real piece of work Auto...a real ringer for a boofhead that tries to look educated but fails miserbly. You have obviously heard nothing of this recent finding or you would not have needed to make a fool out of yourself, as usual with your outdated evidence.

If you cannot discuss the subject in a civil manner, I will report you to the mods and cease interacting with you. It is not my habit to subject myself to verbal abuse.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What the good Doctor fails to mention is that the evolution of the eye is in perfect harmony with biological evolution. Biologists have been able to predicatively test what would be found in differing stages of eye development, and verify them.
When he falls back on the "magical poofing" of intelligent design, he leaves the realm of science and is delving into supernatural mumbo jumbo. And his argument rests on the unprovable, untestable, and unfalsifiable premise of "goddidit".
Like many of his ilk, he works harder to discredit biology, and failing miserably, than in presenting actual evidence of ID.
Not surprising, since there is absolutely no objective evidence in support of ID.

But back to the topic of the Fossil Record.....

Hey tumbleweed 41, I love it when you indicate your own researchers are fools because I agree. You are commenting like as if this guy is the only researcher with this view and this informs me that you are NOT familiar with your own recent developments.

When a creationist gives an opinion you belittle them. When a creationist speaks through researchers that are more credentialed than anyone here you belittle the researcher. Can you not see what fools you make of your own sciences?

First of all, the "researcher" in question is not a biologist. He is an MD who writes articles for creationist sites.
He is well known for "quote mining" and not including the entire results of others research.
Secondly, as I said, he, and you, have failed to present any objective evidence in support of "magic poofing", better known as Creationism.
Instead you both rely on misrepresenting others research in weak efforts to topple the abundance of empirical evidence supporting biological evolution.

 

[David M]

The sad fact is that there is evidence that tiktaalik was not the first tetrapoda and if you were not so stupid you would know this is research done elsewhere that was reported on in a newspaper.

The sad fact is that "if you were not so stupid" you would know that no one claimed Tiktaalik was the first tetrapod and no one ever claimed it was the only tetrapod and no one ever claimed it was the tetrapod that later tetrapods were descended.

What was claimed is that Tiktaalik was an example of a transitional form for early tetrapods and it was found at exactly the age period at which such transitions should be found.

Here it is again in Wiki.

Good, perhaps this time you will stop misrepresenting the facts.

Wiki Tiktaalik
Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids[8] (of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.[9]

Yes, other tetrapods were around when Tiktaalik was around, which is exactly what would be expected by anyone who knew anything about ToE.

Only the truly ignorant or the truly dishonest could think that finding tetrapod tracks in the same geologic period that transitional tetrapods fossils are found does anything more than confirm ToE.

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life.

Originally posted by Krok:
Yes it has. It is observed that we only had rocks with no fossils for hundreds of millions of years, then it is observed that fossils appeared in rocks slightly older than the first ones. It is thus observed that life started somehow. It happened. That’s what we know.

Are you for real? Since you are bold enough to argue to the contrary, tell me - who observed the spontaneous generation of life?
What are the ingredients?
Who put the ingredients together in such a comprehensive manner?
Was abiogenesis happening when was it observed?
Exactly how long ago was that?
Was it recorded by anyone?
Can you quote me one prominent biologist who agrees with you?
What makes you think that the appearance of a fossil tells you how that fossil came to be what it is and where it is?

 

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life.

Are you for real? Since you are bold enough to argue to the contrary, tell me - who observed the spontaneous generation of life?
What are the ingredients?
Who put the ingredients together in such a comprehensive manner?
Was abiogenesis happening when was it observed?
Exactly how long ago was that?
Was it recorded by anyone?
Can you quote me one prominent biologist who agrees with you?
What makes you think that the appearance of a fossil tells you how that fossil came to be what it is and where it is?

what he stated is actually true

It is observed that we only had rocks with no fossils for hundreds of millions of years

TRUE and no dispute

then it is observed that fossils appeared in rocks slightly older than the first ones

TRUE again we have cyanobacteria fossils this is not in dispute

[i have cyanobacteria growing as i type]

It is thus observed that life started somehow

not worded properly but he did state somehow, meaning he doeant know for sure. no debate there

It happened. That’s what we know

this is a fact



please wilson try again without turning his words into something they are not

 

[Amill]

The sad fact is that there is evidence that tiktaalik was not the first tetrapoda and if you were not so stupid you would know this is research done elsewhere that was reported on in a newspaper.

So what LOL. That's like being surprised at there being different kinds of wolves. And with any of the fossils we find, no one can be certain that it represents the exact species that whatever you're discussing is descended from. In 50 million years from now will the frog people be able to tell from fossils which exact species of frog they're descended from? No because there's a billion of them and many look extremely similar. But that doesn't change the fact that we still make predictions about the characteristics of fossils and then go out and find exactly that. That's why we can find dinosaurs with feathers and some other avian characteristics, that's why we cant agree over whether or not certain specimens are mammal like reptiles or reptile like mammals, that's why we find fossils with basal characteristics of both monkeys and lemurs, ect, ect, ect. And do you have any explanation for why we find fossils that we can't describe as fully bear or fully dog? God just made certain animals that way? It's just a coincidence that we find examples of animals that appear to fill the transition from land animal to aquatic whales?

God "oopsies I didn't mean to make an animal that looks like a bear or a dog, oopsies I didn't mean to make an animal that they will have trouble classifying as bird or dinosaur, what the hell....why did I give manatees fingernails again?"

Oh and is your "hypothesis" for how life came to be the way it is anything more than "god created all, the end". We'd love to hear just a bit more detail. Go ahead and describe what the fossil record says about the Creation of life. Try to use evidence that supports your hypothesis though, not some that tries to challenge aspects of evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, the very idea that there is a missing link fossil is a bit weird.

That there must be a whole chain, as many Creationists seem to implicitly believe, is just an uninformed belief.

 

[micrurus]

You evolutionists are in a real mess aren't you? If creationists don't supply evidence you have a squark and if they do you still squark...go figure..another name for evolutionists might be squarkers.

I see you can't refute the evidence that shows your evidence is crap, so the next best thing is to make a fool of yourself.

Congratulations.

:banghead3