What does the fossil record say?

[newhope101]

Dan4reason..Are you baiting me? I think evos fairly well believe the difference in chromo numbers is due to fusion of 2 chimpy genes after separation. However, what is different at the fusion site is 135,000 single nucleotides. See chimp genome project wiki. Gene fusion happens alot. It is not about the similarities. It IS about the differences. I have read about similar chimp genes performing different functions. Similarly, just because a plant has FOXP2 does not mean we are related, nor that a plant can speak. It is a nonsense to suggest that similar genes support ancestry. There are ample examples of where this is not the case.

Huge Genome-Scale Phylogenetic Study Of Birds Rewrites Evolutionary Tree-of-Life

ScienceDaily (June 27, 2008) — The largest ever study of bird genetics has not only shaken up but completely redrawn the avian evolutionary tree. The study challenges current classifications, alters our understanding of avian evolution, and provides a valuable resource for phylogenetic and comparative studies in birds.

Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the widely held view that shorebirds gave rise to all modern birds.
"With this study, we learned two major things," said Sushma Reddy, another lead author and Bucksbaum Postdoctoral Fellow at The Field Museum. "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."

Again I see some replies that evade the question ..what ancestry is the current fossil evidence good evidence of, in relation to humans?










You had great evidence of knuckle walking ancestry, despite PW confusion, now that is rubbish. Where has the evidence for the chimp hand morph gone...or was it that you never actually had any..it was just made up at the time to fit in with current thinking. I do not care what explanations you provide 'current thinking' has been proved incorrect so many times that it is hardly worth the paper it is written on, when it comes to evolution.

Is the fossil evidence good evidence of mankinds evolution from anything? If so, it is not good evidence of anything at all!!!!!!

I'd speculate that connection makes sense to everyone, except for die hard evos and their theory in evolution.

Unfortunately evolutionists are not sure what the fossil evidence is supposed to say in relation to humans especially. Whatever, however, from whom ever will all be OK with the same fossil evidence..oh you may need to throw out one or two..

No one of them can answer what ancestry the fossil evidence is supposed to support in the human line. It just does. It will support decent from chimp, orangutan, dog or Lizard ancestors, I expect.

What does the fossil evidence say. It says there were a great many variety of kinds, some of which are now exinct, none of which evolved from another's common ancestor. There is no common ancestor and to proove it, none has been found.

What do evos not get about this?

 

[painted wolf]

It appears you may be incorrect again and looking up an old text book. Indeed a silverfish is not a springtail. A springtail is not even considered an insects anymore. See wiki for more info and referenced research.

Why do you even pretend to pay attention?
Did I say silverfish were springtails?
Did I ever say they were insects?
Was that the question that was asked?


wa:do

 

[newhope101]

PaintedWolf....

I beleive this was the question put to Wilconsole
"What two species diverged in the case of the insects?
Can your fossil evidence tell you that?"

You, the rest of the forum, and your researchers do not know the answer to these questions. Why are you asking creationist to answer questions your leading researchers are unable to answer with any clarity. Are you all trying to bait? There is no divergence in the evolutionary sense you are implying. The only type of divergence that happens is in kind variations. Flying insects are found fully formed and not with half wings. All theorised and possible or likely ancestors to any insect are themselves represented here today. Hence, all is as it should be for creationists. So it is evolutionists that have the problem, not creationists, of classifying where a half winged anything would go and any resulting naughty hybrid.

So if Wilconsole does not come up with a definitive answer to this question, what does that say about any point he has made? Nothing. You evos ask questions you have no idea of the answer to in your own field..... Then think that's some sort of victory if a creationists is not 100% clear themselves. That is rather hypocritical behaviour and a sad desperate ploy that is instantly obvious.



Evolution of Insects:
Early evidence
The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, estimated at 396-407 million years old.[3] This species already possessed dicondylic mandibles, a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings may already have evolved at this time. Thus, the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period.[3]

The subclass Apterygota (wingless insects) is now considered artificial as the silverfish (order Thysanura) are more closely related to Pterygota (winged insects) than to bristletails (order Archaeognatha). For instance, just like flying insects, Thysanura have so-called dicondylic mandibles, while Archaeognatha have monocondylic mandibles. The reason for their resemblance is not due to a particularly close relationship, but rather because they both have kept a primitive and original anatomy in a much higher degree than the winged insects. The most primitive order of flying insects, the mayflies (Ephemeroptera), are also those who are most morphologically and physiologically similar to these wingless insects. Some mayfly nymphs resemble aquatic thysanurans.

Origin of insect flight
The origin of insect flight remains obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. Some extinct insects (e.g. the Palaeodictyoptera) had an additional pair of winglets attached to the first segment of the thorax, for a total of three pairs.


So I wonder where you classify your insects with half wings or half a tracheal gill and half a wing, or quarter a gill and 3/4 a wing. This is your problem but not a problem for creationists as there are no insects found with a half useless wing.

If only your researchers would stop looking for ancestry and look for kinds all this would be much clearer for creationists. Creationists would have to look at phylogeny as you have evidence that morphology is not an indication of ancestry. Even looking at phylogeny would have to be done without the biased methods and models, built on the presumption of ancestry, used today.

So, rather than guessing like evolutionists do, I think many creationists would rather wait until more testing and reliable comparisons come to light before attempting classification of insects. No doubt, in hypocritical true form, you all will require a standard of evidence higher than you yourselves or researchers can supply at the moment to confirm in-kind variations rather than ancestry through species. That appears to be a while away yet.

 

[Dan4reason]

Unfortunately evolutionists are not sure what the fossil evidence is supposed to say in relation to humans especially. Whatever, however, from whom ever will all be OK with the same fossil evidence..oh you may need to throw out one or two..

No one of them can answer what ancestry the fossil evidence is supposed to support in the human line. It just does. It will support decent from chimp, orangutan, dog or Lizard ancestors, I expect.

What does the fossil evidence say. It says there were a great many variety of kinds, some of which are now exinct, none of which evolved from another's common ancestor. There is no common ancestor and to proove it, none has been found.

What do evos not get about this?

Obviously I was baiting you. I don't actually think there is any major problem with the theory of evolution. As you know chromosomes have teleomeres at the end of them. If two pairs of chromosomes fused to produce one chromosome we should see telomeres in the middle of them. This is exactly what we see. We even have the exact point of fusion, and know which ape chromosomes fused by comparing the fused human pair with the chimp genome.

 

[painted wolf]

PaintedWolf....

I beleive this was the question put to Wilconsole
"What two species diverged in the case of the insects?
Can your fossil evidence tell you that?"

You, the rest of the forum, and your researchers do not know the answer to these questions. Why are you asking creationist to answer questions your leading researchers are unable to answer with any clarity. Are you all trying to bait?

See.. you aren't paying any attention at all. You're just posting to try to make yourself feel important.

The questions wern't posted TO Wilconsole... they were posted BY Wilconsole.

No one here is baiting except you... and you are only baiting yourself. (with the exception of Dan4reason )

Now, if you would try to actually read what others post instead on just skimming and jumping to conclusions.... we may actually be able to have a conversation.

You have provided nothing useful to this discussion... you simply repeat the same things over and over in hopes that things will change and your argument will make sense. There is a definition for this... insanity.

If you want to actually contribute fine... if not, I'm bored with your record player arguments and ad hominem attacks.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Critters like springtails and bristletails (aka silverfish). So close to being an insect, but not quite.

wa:do

It wasn't an insect, but it became one. Is that it? Or was it the other way 'round?
How come there has been no change in all those millions of years?

Picture of 92 million year-old ant.
Looks just as they do today, don't you think?
Oldest Known Fossil Ants - Amber With Inclusions

Amber - Bee - Amber With Inclusions

You really don't know, do you?
Why won't you admit it?
What fossil evidence do you have to prove changes took place in insects?

So, the lowly insect gives the lie to evolution.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

It wasn't an insect, but it became one. Is that it? Or was it the other way 'round?
How come there has been no change in all those millions of years?

Picture of 92 million year-old ant.
Looks just as they do today, don't you think?
Oldest Known Fossil Ants - Amber With Inclusions

Amber - Bee - Amber With Inclusions

You really don't know, do you?
Why won't you admit it?
What fossil evidence do you have to prove changes took place in insects?

So, the lowly insect gives the lie to evolution.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

You do realise that this is a picture of a modern ant?
Which is why it looks a lot like a modern ant.
Now that is some epic fail (the picture has been around on the internet since 2007, a year before the paper was published about this ancient ant).

A picture of the actual 92 million year old ants can be found at:
http://antbase.org/ants/publications/9506/9506.pdf

So the lowly insect gives the lie to your claims about evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

So the lowly insect gives the lie to your claims about evolution.

Again.

 

[newhope101]

So what is your point David M?

Wiki:
Vespoidea is a superfamily of order Hymenoptera of class Insecta, although older taxonomic schemes may vary in this categorization, particularly in their recognition of a now-obsolete superfamily Scolioidea. The members of this group are wasps and ants.


So it appears wasps are a kind, bees are a kind, and ants are a kind. So what? Finding a creature with mixed traits means nothing if you have been paying attention to the recent Aves research. If the phylogeny is close then they may be the same kind. Meaning God created a waspy type kind. He may have made one breeding pair or many and they may have been all identical or varied. They spread adapted and became ants bees and wasps. I cannot say without more genomic data. Really guessing on morphological connections this day in age, without robust genomic data available appears to be the practice of fools and I am not one.

And still not one of you evolutionists are prepared to commit to what ancestry the current fossil evidence for the evolution of mankind is good evidence of.

That as far as I am concerned is the end of this topic. Evos are not prepared to even offer some guess for fear that whatever they say may be overturned over the next few years or so.

The topic is. what does the fossil evidence say? and you cannot even comment on what is says about the ancestry of humans let alone hippos, whales, ants or anything else.

Tell me how the fossil evidence is excellent evidence for the ancestry of humans to arboreal, but non swinging, hairy, ape toed, bipeds, that appear to have no advantage on land nor in the trees. Tweak this, add your very own, I don't care.

There will be changes. They'll find some creature that has more human feet or more human head or a bigger brain case or something and this will all shift. Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. A very simplistic phrase yet still holds so true.

The point being when this all changes again, and it will, I want to come back and see if the fossil evidence has changed or if the same fossil evidence is once again good evidence telling of human ancestry to a different whatever.

What exactly is the evidence saying other than there was much variety in non human primates?

 

[wilsoncole]

You do realise that this is a picture of a modern ant?

There's no such thing as a "modern ant." What does an ancient ant look like? Well, the pictures show them looking pretty much the same as they do today.
The picture in that link you supplied is indistinguishable, so you cannot really tell me anything about it. The accompanying drawing makes it appear just like ants always did.
And the caption appearing just above the picture in my link says:
American Museum Of Natural History Researchers Announce Discovery Of Oldest Known Fossil Ants - 92-Million-Year-Old Fossils Found In New Jersey Amber
What is the reader to expect?

Which is why it looks a lot like a modern ant.
Now that is some epic fail (the picture has been around on the internet since 2007, a year before the paper was published about this ancient ant).

A picture of the actual 92 million year old ants can be found at:
http://antbase.org/ants/publications/9506/9506.pdf

So the lowly insect gives the lie to your claims about evolution.

The epic fail is on your part, Sir, because your picture showed no difference in the appearance of ants today and 92 million years ago. If you really think there are differences, maybe you can point them out to me.
I don't think you can.
There are pictures of millipedes, roaches, flies, scorpions, lizards, frogs, bees, mayflies from ancient times ALL looking like they do today.
I would like to see a single specimen of an ancient fossilized creature, not extinct, that looked a lot different than they do today. Just show me one.
The coelacanthe has not changed a bit.

"Survival of the fittest" is a whopper. Such a condition does not exist in nature.
The entire theory of evolution is a lie!

Yes - that lowly insect gives the lie to claims of changes in ancient to modern insects.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Again.

I thought you had taken a powder.
Grabbing at a straw?
I am still waiting for your response to Reply # 1014
Show me the honesty in evolutionists.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

The epic fail is on your part, Sir, because your picture showed no difference in the appearance of ants today and 92 million years ago.

I will point out that you made the claim

Picture of 92 million year-old ant.
Looks just as they do today, don't you think?

While posting a picture of an ant of today, not a 92 million year old ant. You have yet to post a picture of a 92 million year old ant.

But rather than having the grace to admit this mistake you try and evade the issue.

If you really think there are differences, maybe you can point them out to me.
I don't think you can.

Between the picture you used and an extant ant species? No one can because it is an extant ant species.

Now if you want to go find some real data on 92 million year old ants I'll take a look at it.

There are pictures of millipedes, roaches, flies, scorpions, lizards, frogs, bees, mayflies from ancient times ALL looking like they do today.
I would like to see a single specimen of an ancient fossilized creature, not extinct, that looked a lot different than they do today. Just show me one.
The coelacanthe has not changed a bit.

The fossilized coelocanth species do not look like the species found today. Why don't you dig up pictures of the various species and show us how they are unchanged?

You won't because as soon as you see them you will know that this is just another claim made from ignorance.

"Survival of the fittest" is a whopper. Such a condition does not exist in nature.

"Survival of the fittest" where survival means enhanced probability of reproducing ad fittest does not mean strong or fast but slightly better adapted to the current ebvironment is a proven fact, more of your ignorance showing here.

The entire theory of evolution is a lie!

Its the truth, and is supported by a mountain of evidence. Try presenting some real evidence (with proper sources) if you can.

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought you had taken a powder.
Grabbing at a straw?
I am still waiting for your response to Reply # 1014
Show me the honesty in evolutionists.

Are you? You haven't been paying attention them.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Insects were already an ancient Class 92 million years ago.

 

[wilsoncole]

Are you? You haven't been paying attention them.

Maybe I'm blind or something, but I cannot find your response to Reply # 1014.
Will you point it out to me?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Insects were already an ancient Class 92 million years ago.

How do you know and who made the classification?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[newhope101]

I will point out that you made the claim
While posting a picture of an ant of today, not a 92 million year old ant. You have yet to post a picture of a 92 million year old ant.
And what was a wasp before it took to flight? What was it when it developed half a wing? Ants are small, there may have been millions just not lucky enough to get preserved in amber.
But rather than having the grace to admit this mistake you try and evade the issue.
Tell us what a wasp was before it took to flight? What you have is evidence that wasps were around for over 100 million years and have changed little. You do not have a wasp/ant cross preserved in amber, it is a wasp/bee looking creature.

So what you have are wasps around prior to the advent of flowering plants. So what did they eat? They must have been vampires sucking caterpillar blood. I sure hope caterpillars or something suckable was around then.

Between the picture you used and an extant ant species? No one can because it is an extant ant species.

Now if you want to go find some real data on 92 million year old ants I'll take a look at it.





The fossilized coelocanth species do not look like the species found today. Why don't you dig up pictures of the various species and show us how they are unchanged?

Pattern Of Early Animal Evolution On Earth
ScienceDaily (July 26, 2007) &#8212; The abundant diversity of characteristics within species likely helped fuel the proliferation and evolution of an odd-looking creature that emerged from an unprecedented explosion of life on Earth more than 500 million years ago. University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster reports this finding in the July 27 issue of the journal Science.
Trilobites were among the creatures that emerged 500 million years ago, during what paleontologists call "the Cambrian explosion," or "the Cambrian radiation." Before this time, life on Earth was limited mostly to bacteria, algae, single-celled organisms and only the simplest animal groups. But during the Cambrian Period, more complex creatures with skeletons, eyes and limbs emerged with amazing suddenness.
"The paper is relevant to the big question of what fueled the Cambrian radiation, and why that event was so singular," said UC-Riverside's Hughes of Webster's study. It appears that organisms displayed "rampant" within-species variation "in the 'warm afterglow' of the Cambrian explosion," Hughes said, but not later. "No one has shown this convincingly before, and that's why this is so important."
"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."

You won't because as soon as you see them you will know that this is just another claim made from ignorance.

Yeah he can and I did. Sponges, stomatolites, cnidarians(jellyfish) are other example of precambian life that has remained unchanged to this day.

"Survival of the fittest" where survival means enhanced probability of reproducing ad fittest does not mean strong or fast but slightly better adapted to the current ebvironment is a proven fact, more of your ignorance showing here.
Oh I don't know about that. Aren't humans just degenerate apes lacking genetic variety and humanized through deleterious mutations, replacing fittness with ability to reason. Yet evolution is said to have no vested interest in creating intelligent reasoning life. We should have stayed chimps or orangs, eat fruit all day and not have to go to work. What a mistake the evolution of mankind was. Now we are detroying the planet. Are we evolutionary mistakes?

And you are wrong in that evos propose accelerated evolution in parts of the genome such as the human male Y chromosome. 'Slight betterment' and Smooth and slow does not fit the fossil record hence punctuated evolution and accelerated evolution of genes are the theories meant to explain the unexpected and unpredicted, all of which supports Toe, naturally..........NOT.

Advantageous mutations are rare, 80% are deleterious, and your researchers could not even get a fruitfly to fix an advantageous allele in a population after 600 generations of adaptation to accelerated development. Natural selection IS the selection of beneficial alleles in a population. It didn't happen in the lab. It is less likely to happen in the wild. That is your research without the theory.
Its the truth, and is supported by a mountain of evidence. Try presenting some real evidence (with proper sources) if you can.

I've just spoken to EVIDENCE. It must be your turn to GO FIND SOME!

Creationists do present real research and evidence in response to the theoretical evidence you present.

For example you and your researchers say Adaptation and natural selection is one mode of evolution along side genetic drift. I have presented evidence that shows an adaptive advantage for accelerated fitness did not fix the allele in a population of drosophila after 600 generations. That is evidence to the contrary. I say that adaptive changes and natural selection are not going to change one kind into another kind but only produce in-kind variation in response to adaptation that is limited.

The refutes I get are ignorance, misinterpretations of the research, asides, and every other refute other than an evidence based one.

Perhaps you can produce a specimen that has a mid human/chimp version of the FOXP2 gene. This may be evidence, so long as the specimen is not a plant.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's see.
If we take the stories in Genesis as literally true, what would we find in the fossil and geological record?

1. The fossil record, from bottom to top would be mainly composed of gradually larger species. But there would be the occasional random mixture of species as well: trilobites with humans with dinosaurs with maples with Cycad trees. Species would be somewhat mixed. The very bottom layers would include signs of human habitation. This is not shown however.
2. The fossil record clearly shows that land animals developed before birds. But the Genesis account indicates the reverse.
3. Theologians have generally agreed that the Bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years of age. However, in Wyoming, the Green River Formation shows that varves -- a 260 meters thick formation made from annual layers of sediment -- were laid down for the past 2 million years. Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice. In each case, one detectable layer of sediment or ice is laid down each year.
4. When there are fewer than about 40 members to a species, extinction is inevitable, even when massive human intervention occurs. After the flood there would have been only 2 or 7 members to each species; they would not have survived.
5. There is no indication of a worldwide flood in ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, temples, pyramids, sculptures, etc., which existed at the time of Noah. Yet, if the flood really did occur, then all of the world's early civilizations would have been completely destroyed. The entire population of the world would have consisted of 8 people, in the vicinity of the ark. It would have taken millennia for humanity to become re-established in China and elsewhere.

SOURCE

1. This is fine. A creative day is a period of time, not necessarily an earth day. It makes sense for the creator to prepare the earth for inhabitation and stage his creations. Mankind was last hence even a creationist would not expect to find a precambrian human. If a precambrian human was found then new earther literalists would be dead right. Your problem is sorting out Aves, as the bible speaks to sea creatures and birds as the first animal creations. To this day your aves and lizards are in a huge mess, understandably.
2. When Ticktaalic landed there were already tetrapod footprints around. Hence at the moment your researchers can not provide clarity around this at all. It is an assumption made as a fish can hardly been seen to take to flight.
3. I am not a new earther so no probs here at all.In fact the bible talks of the watery type world the earth was. a very good descriptor for the time and in line with current theory of coalescence of the earth.
4. Again you presume a global flood, It may have been a mega flood.
5. The disappearance of the land mass between England nd France disappeared forever due to a mega flood. Just recently here in Australia, half of Queensland and Victoria was underwater after a deluge of rain over a week or two. I can't imagine what the place would have looked like if it rained for 40 days. It would appear to be a global flood, particularly if I couldn't turn on the TV or radio and find out what was going on.
6. You also forget that by your own researchers you have conceeded that all the population on the earth today is connected tot he MRCA at 5,000 years ago. Hence in that time there are billions of people. Repopulation does not appear to be a problem, especially without birth control.

I get it.
The Bible is literally true, unless in conflicts with the real world. Then you can use excuses such as "Regional Flood" and "Creation Day", or "Old Earth Creationist".

But back to the most important question.

Does the fossil record in any way support Creationism? And if so provide this evidence.

 

[painted wolf]

It wasn't an insect, but it became one. Is that it? Or was it the other way 'round?
How come there has been no change in all those millions of years?

There has been a lot of change in millions of years. For example the oldest ant Sphecomyrma freyi (not the one you pictured that is a modern ant) has a stinger and jaws like a wasp among other features not seen in modern ants. Here it is... it's a nice example of a transitional fossil actually.

Modern ants are some of the most varied critters on the planet.

You really don't know, do you?
Why won't you admit it?

I admit we don't have all the answers, I've never claimed otherwise... but we are not without some good evidence.
I'm sorry if you think I claim to have all the answers...I don't and I find the unknown exciting and gives us room to grow... if I didn't I wouldn't be a biologist.

What fossil evidence do you have to prove changes took place in insects?

So, the lowly insect gives the lie to evolution.

That fossil you pointed out is a good example... it's quite different from modern ants and more like wasps. Most people are unfamiliar with insect evolution... insects aren't very interesting to most people.

wa:do

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The story YOU hold dear, fossils telling the truth, is really the myth.
Faith in old bones is quite stupid. They cannot provide for you protect you nor save you.

First lets get one thing straight. I'm in need of no protection nor am I'm looking to be saved.

Second, the study of "old bones" or any bones found is vital to the understanding of how animals/humans lived, where they lived and possibly how they died. If you feel this kind of science is "stupid" then kindly leave this debate.

Osteology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The study of bones is extremely useful is various fields of science (anthropology as well as forensics). It helps in areas as far as history, even religious history, as well as aiding police in our day and time to solve crimes. Once again, if you feel as though the study of bones is "stupid" then kindly take your uneducated self somewhere, where others share in your sense of self delusion.

I've said this before and I'm saying it again:
Biblical principles, if followed, NEVER fails. They can bring peace to the entire world.
Can you name one principle, taken from a myth, that can benefit all mankind?

This debate is not about religious principals. Your religious dogma is the same as others around the world. That's not in question here nor is it important to this debate.