GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?  (Read 60406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1925 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 12:46:48 »
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/

Quote
Living Fossils

“Living fossil” typically describes a living organism that looks like a fossilized organism but has no close living relatives by evolutionary reckoning. While dinosaurs no longer walk the earth (as far as we know), we can still observe living examples of animals and plants that shared the world with dinosaurs.

Living Proof

“Living fossils” pose a conundrum. Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically? The answer is easy for creationists.

Fish Story - Coelacanth

No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years, which is why it keeps turning up—and conveniently reminding us of the fallibility of the supposed indisputable science evolutionary paleontologists feed the public.

Spider Fossilized in Amber

Huntsman spiders have made no evolutionary progress or even any speciation changes since this one managed to get himself entombed. He appears as modern as his descendants. This fact does not surprise us, since we are confident that the amber is no more than a few thousand years old.
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 12:53:47 by Amo »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1925 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 12:46:48 »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1926 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 12:53:18 »
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/living-proof/

Quote
Living Proof

A giant salamander has been discovered in rock layers that evolutionists date at 30 million years. Yet it is virtually identical to the giant salamanders living today, which can get up to 5.5 feet long.

Such “living fossils” pose a conundrum. Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically?

The answer is easy for creationists. This fossil appears in a rock layer above those associated with the Flood. It appears to be one of many animals that repopulated the earth after the Flood, only a few thousand years ago.

Given the short time frame, it is not surprising to find such little change among some animals, and this helps confirm that the earth is not millions of years old.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1926 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 12:53:18 »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1927 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 12:57:11 »
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/living-fossils-detachable-chart/

Quote
Living fossils are found throughout the fossil layers. In fact, almost every “family” of living animals has an amazingly similar ancestor preserved deep in the fossil record. What does this mean?

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v6/n1/fossil-chart.pdf


Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1928 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 13:04:09 »
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/fossil-turtles-confound-evolutionists/

Quote
Fossil Turtles Confound Evolutionists

Australian scientists announced in February the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.1 However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!

The fossils are "believed" to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look "basically the same as sea turtles do today."2

Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is "dated" at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since "remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years," Discovery reports.

How do the evolutionists explain this? The Australian researchers are quoted as saying that the "sea turtles have hit on the winning design … [and] cracked the winning code." Notice how the evolutionists describe the turtles-as if they are highly intelligent, creative, forward-looking engineers, which they are not, of course. Evolution is supposedly based on natural selection and mutations, which are mindless, directionless, blind natural processes.

Not only are these turtle fossils contrary to the theory of perpetual and gradual evolutionary change, they also simultaneously refute the notion of millions of years. It is simply unbelievable that these turtles could remain unchanged for over 100 million years, given that information-degrading mutations are known to accumulate in living things, generation after generation (a consequence of the Curse of Genesis 3).

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1928 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 13:04:09 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1929 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 13:07:41 »



Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1930 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 13:18:49 »
Turvy human dinosaur fossil examination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUQeN7INIc8


Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1931 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 13:44:44 »
Quote
If you think creationism is dying, you are not very well informed.


Creationism has been remarkably resistant to change over time, but it is now slowly declining:

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1932 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 13:52:24 »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1933 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 15:02:04 »
The following video is rather dated, yet very revealing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcFHaWs3-7Q


Online Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1934 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 16:07:02 »
Creationism has been remarkably resistant to change over time, but it is now slowly declining:

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx



Shocked that it's still that high. The education system clearly still has much work to do.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Fundytastic Resident Board Genius
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7339
  • Manna: 298
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1935 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 16:51:23 »

Shocked that it's still that high. The education system clearly still has much work to do.

We clearly need them to indoctrinate our young for atheism and other libtarded ideals that go along with it as well.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1936 on: Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 17:32:05 »
Quote
More on human dino prints.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaQqa90e9KQ

The "Paluxy Man-tracks" were debunked by a group of YE creationists:

A Summary of the Taylor Site Evidence
 Creation Evolution Journal
However, not all creationists agreed with Taylor's interpretations. Even before Taylor's film was released, the Taylor site was studied by a team of creationists from Loma Linda University (Neufeld, 1975), who reported that several of the tracks in the Taylor Trail showed indications of dinosaurian digits and concluded that the tracks were probably eroded remains of three-toed dinosaur tracks (although they did not adequately explain the elongate nature of the tracks). Other creationists, including Dr. Ernest Booth of Outdoor Pictures, Inc. (1981), and Wilbert Rusch, president of the Creation Research Society (1971, 1981), also visited the site soon after it was first exposed and expressed skepticism about the "mantrack" claims.

Nevertheless, the impact of Taylor's film and other creationist works which promoted the "mantrack" claims led to wide acclaim for the Taylor site among creationists. At the time, most evolutionists familiar with these claims apparently did not feel that they were worth careful investigation and typically dismissed them with one or more generalizations. Some suggested that all the "mantracks" were carvings or erosion marks. Others attributed them to middle digit impressions of bipedal dinosaurs or mud-collapsed specimens of typical tridactyl dinosaur tracks. Although some of these explanations did pertain to alleged human tracks on other sites, none of them adequately explained all the features of the Taylor site "mantracks."
...
I would like to clarify my position on the creation-evolution controversy and my reasons for researching and reporting on the Paluxy evidence.

I prefer not to be labeled a creationist or an evolutionist, since I do not fully identify with all of the tenets often assumed to typify each camp. I am a Christian and believe in the Creator but have not yet formed definite conclusions about some aspects of the origins controversy, such as the exact age of the earth or the limits to biological change. However, on some issues that I have studied in depth, such as the Paluxy controversy, I have formed definite conclusions, as explained in this article. I chose to publish my research in Creation/Evolution not to attack creationism but to help set the record straight on the true nature of the Paluxy evidence.

Creation Evolution Journal Number: 1 Quarter: Winter  Page(s):  10–18  Year:  1986

I've been there.  There are a large number of dinosaur tracks there; as old ones get eroded, new ones get exposed. Haven't seen any that resembled human foot prints, but I've seen a large number of them that look like the prints in the report.   All have marks consistent with dinosaur feet.


Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1937 on: Sun Feb 11, 2018 - 10:15:24 »
The "Paluxy Man-tracks" were debunked by a group of YE creationists:

A Summary of the Taylor Site Evidence
 Creation Evolution Journal
However, not all creationists agreed with Taylor's interpretations. Even before Taylor's film was released, the Taylor site was studied by a team of creationists from Loma Linda University (Neufeld, 1975), who reported that several of the tracks in the Taylor Trail showed indications of dinosaurian digits and concluded that the tracks were probably eroded remains of three-toed dinosaur tracks (although they did not adequately explain the elongate nature of the tracks). Other creationists, including Dr. Ernest Booth of Outdoor Pictures, Inc. (1981), and Wilbert Rusch, president of the Creation Research Society (1971, 1981), also visited the site soon after it was first exposed and expressed skepticism about the "mantrack" claims.

Nevertheless, the impact of Taylor's film and other creationist works which promoted the "mantrack" claims led to wide acclaim for the Taylor site among creationists. At the time, most evolutionists familiar with these claims apparently did not feel that they were worth careful investigation and typically dismissed them with one or more generalizations. Some suggested that all the "mantracks" were carvings or erosion marks. Others attributed them to middle digit impressions of bipedal dinosaurs or mud-collapsed specimens of typical tridactyl dinosaur tracks. Although some of these explanations did pertain to alleged human tracks on other sites, none of them adequately explained all the features of the Taylor site "mantracks."
...
I would like to clarify my position on the creation-evolution controversy and my reasons for researching and reporting on the Paluxy evidence.

I prefer not to be labeled a creationist or an evolutionist, since I do not fully identify with all of the tenets often assumed to typify each camp. I am a Christian and believe in the Creator but have not yet formed definite conclusions about some aspects of the origins controversy, such as the exact age of the earth or the limits to biological change. However, on some issues that I have studied in depth, such as the Paluxy controversy, I have formed definite conclusions, as explained in this article. I chose to publish my research in Creation/Evolution not to attack creationism but to help set the record straight on the true nature of the Paluxy evidence.

Creation Evolution Journal Number: 1 Quarter: Winter  Page(s):  10–18  Year:  1986

I've been there.  There are a large number of dinosaur tracks there; as old ones get eroded, new ones get exposed. Haven't seen any that resembled human foot prints, but I've seen a large number of them that look like the prints in the report.   All have marks consistent with dinosaur feet.

Some one is most certainly lying. No surprise in that, the implications are of course devastating to the theory of evolution. Creationists on one of the video even claim eye witness account of an evolutionist destroying the evidence, as on other videos I shared have as well. In the end, one of these groups will be found to be liars, and end up where all liars eventually go. May God convict their hearts to repent and reveal the truth, that they might escape the lake of fire. If it be true, the CT scanned prints are rather convincing evidence I would say.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1938 on: Sun Feb 11, 2018 - 22:47:14 »
Quote
Some one is most certainly lying.


Some of them...
The Burdick Print (or Burdick Track) is claimed by some strict or "young earth" creationists to be a "giant man track" from Glen Rose, Texas. However, it is one of several prints on loose blocks of rock which show strong evidence of a carved origin, and is acknowledged by Glen Rose residents to be one of the carvings made by George Adams in the 1930's. It shows serious anatomic errors as well as subsurface features which truncate at the print's surface, confirming it's carved origin. Furthermore, the orientation of algal fossils in the rock suggests that the original "up" direction was the side opposite the alleged footprint. In other words, evidently the carver unwittingly created the print on what was originally the bottom side of the rock.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm

Others are honest mistakes, where dinosaur footprints were confused for human prints.

Most creationists have abandoned these stories.  Indeed, YE creationists have debunked a number of them.

 

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1939 on: Fri Feb 16, 2018 - 09:07:31 »
Some of them...
The Burdick Print (or Burdick Track) is claimed by some strict or "young earth" creationists to be a "giant man track" from Glen Rose, Texas. However, it is one of several prints on loose blocks of rock which show strong evidence of a carved origin, and is acknowledged by Glen Rose residents to be one of the carvings made by George Adams in the 1930's. It shows serious anatomic errors as well as subsurface features which truncate at the print's surface, confirming it's carved origin. Furthermore, the orientation of algal fossils in the rock suggests that the original "up" direction was the side opposite the alleged footprint. In other words, evidently the carver unwittingly created the print on what was originally the bottom side of the rock.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm

Others are honest mistakes, where dinosaur footprints were confused for human prints.

Most creationists have abandoned these stories.  Indeed, YE creationists have debunked a number of them.


Like I said, someone is lying, and we will all know who in the end. One side does CT scans to prove it isn't carved, the other insists it is. We can't all examine everything for ourselves. The liars will seriously regret dong so.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1940 on: Fri Feb 16, 2018 - 09:09:54 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PByjvTf_DGM

More challenges to the presuppositions of the self appointed "scientific elites".

Online Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1941 on: Fri Feb 16, 2018 - 09:12:06 »
Like I said, someone is lying, and we will all know who in the end.


No one is lying, that's a fallacy that you and your ilk have fabricated.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1942 on: Sat Feb 17, 2018 - 09:02:15 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX9neaUCBLw

Excellent video about Noah's ark.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1943 on: Sat Feb 17, 2018 - 09:25:53 »

No one is lying, that's a fallacy that you and your ilk have fabricated.

Surprise surprise, you don't believe the scriptures which teach of the devil, deception, liars, and scoffers of the last days. Such is just more fabricated fairly tales like the creation account, flood account, fourth commandment, and whatever else other scriptures don't fit your own version of how it all really is.

Online Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1944 on: Sat Feb 17, 2018 - 09:28:51 »
Surprise surprise, you don't believe the scriptures which teach of the devil, deception, liars, and scoffers of the last days. Such is just more fabricated fairly tales like the creation account, flood account, fourth commandment, and whatever else other scriptures don't fit your own version of how it all really is.


I could say the same to you but you already know how that goes....  ::juggle::

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1945 on: Sat Feb 17, 2018 - 09:36:23 »

I could say the same to you but you already know how that goes....  ::juggle::

Here we are, quote the scripture and point out how I do not believe it.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1946 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 14:13:22 »
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Quote
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed.  Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate.  After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.  Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors.  When the authors inquired, they received this letter:


The letter and the rest of the article may be viewed at the link provided above.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1947 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 14:25:52 »
Ever increasing problems and scrutiny of the theory of evolution.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/with-two-new-fossils-evolutionists-rewrite-narratives-to-accommodate-conflicting-evidence/

Quote
With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence

Two new fossils, described in August and September 2017, have again forced evolutionists to rewrite their fanciful narratives of how major transitions in the history of life occurred. In this case the new fossils disarrayed, respectively, the origin of tetrapod land vertebrates and of bird feathers and flight...................................

Thus, this fossil raises two important problems for evolutionary biology:

1 The character distribution is incongruent and implies independent parallel origins of the same tetrapod-like or rhizodont-like characters (convergence). The alternative explanations of independent origin (homoplasy) versus common origin (homology) of a character trait is not alone decided based on anatomic (dis)similarities but mainly based on the (in)congruence with other data. The same data that are considered evidence of convergence can become evidence for common ancestry when you switch positions in the tree, and vice versa. What most evolutionary biologists have exorcised from their mind is that such incongruences (homoplasies) per se are not evidence for evolution as some evolutionists boldly proclaim (Wells 2017) but, instead, prima facie conflicting evidence against it (Hunter 2017). Convergence, which Lee Spetner has called “even more implausible than evolution itself” (Klinghoffer 2017), and other incongruent similarities have to be explained away with ad hoc hypotheses. In past decades, convergence morphed from an inconvenient exception to the rule — to a ubiquitous phenomenon, found virtually everywhere in living nature. In his book Life’s Solution, paleontologist Conway Morris (2003) felt compelled to declare it a kind of necessary natural law. It thus cannot really be considered a success story for the Darwinian paradigm.

2 Rhizodontids, the group to which this fossil fish belongs, are believed to have branched off early from the lobefin-tetrapod lineage, more than 415 million years ago. However, the oldest fossils are dated to only 377 million years ago, implying a so-called “ghost lineage” of 38 million years when the group should have existed but left no fossil record at all. Such “ghost lineages” are one of the many instances of discontinuity in the fossil record and require ad hoc assumptions in order to be accommodated by evolutionary storytelling.

These two new fossils represent further evidence conflicting with previously accepted evolutionary narratives. But thank God evolutionary theory can easily adapt to such inconvenient evidence, simply by rewriting the story. That way, the new evidence fits perfectly.

Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics. They call into question whether evolutionary biology really qualifies as a hard science at all. Arguably it is not a testable theory, or even a well-defined one, but merely a loose collection of narratives that are forged to fit the evidence — any evidence whatsoever.


Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1948 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 21:54:01 »
The game is an old one.  You take a fossil and do a C-14 test.  When there is almost no C-14 left in a sample, it merely reads whatever the upper limit to the particular instrument might be.  It's like measuring the temperature of a blast furnace with a candy thermometer, and then claim that the melted steel is only 520 degrees F.

No scientist is fooled by that.


Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1949 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 21:58:39 »
Quote
With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence

You quote seems to be completely at odds with the actual paper. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-017-1496-y

Could you explain the discrepancies, and what they mean?




Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1950 on: Thu Feb 22, 2018 - 09:05:16 »
You quote seems to be completely at odds with the actual paper. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-017-1496-y

Could you explain the discrepancies, and what they mean?

Expound please. Are you referring to a paper quoted in the article I quoted? What is the discrepancy, and the nature of your contention with it?

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1951 on: Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 23:17:26 »
Quote
Expound please. Are you referring to a paper quoted in the article I quoted? What is the discrepancy, and the nature of your contention with it?

I'm pointing out that your characterization seems to be at odds with the paper itself.  Please explain how you think the paper supports your interpretation.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1952 on: Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 23:26:54 »
Living Fossils
 
Quote
“Living fossils” pose a conundrum.

For creationists, they do.  Not for scientists.

Quote
Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically? 

It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason.  If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution.  Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time.  Coelacanths are a good example of this.

Quote
No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years

Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then.  They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record.  They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.

 The species of huntsman spider found in amber is not known to exist today.   It is a new species of the genus Crassipes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21528355


Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1953 on: Sun Feb 25, 2018 - 10:23:07 »
I'm pointing out that your characterization seems to be at odds with the paper itself.  Please explain how you think the paper supports your interpretation.

It wasn't about supporting my view, as much as revealing the ever changing tales of evolution. It is not an established science. It is an ever changing dialogue of speculations presented as factual science, which speculations are very often proved wrong.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1954 on: Sun Feb 25, 2018 - 11:33:35 »
Living Fossils
 
Quote
For creationists, they do.  Not for scientists.

Expound. How would creatures not changing over time be a problem for creationists? It is not. It is not necessary to our understanding as it is to yours.

Quote
Quote
Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically?

It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason.  If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution.  Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time.  Coelacanths are a good example of this.

Wrong! Even evolutionists acknowledge major changes between the ancient world as they see it, and our existing one.
These major changes involved the catastrophic extinction of dinosaurs and countless other animals and species including a great many sea creatures. These facts alone at the very least completely changed the environment Coelacanths lived in. Do you deny these claims of major changes by evolutionists, or will you maintain two apposing positions to justify your faith?


Quote
Quote
No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years

Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then.  They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record.  They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.

Even according to your faulty understanding, this means the fish were not extinct but simply continued to change. How have evolutionists concluded these considerable differences with nothing but fossils to speculate upon? Or, how do you know fossils of these coelacanths just haven't been found yet? The following is of some significance as well.

https://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no

Quote
For example, evolutionists once said that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was explained that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. As long as the coelacanth was ‘extinct’, such speculation seemed impossible to disprove. But with the discovery of a living coelacanth in 1938 and their subsequent observation, it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Also, its soft parts were found to be totally fish-like, not transitional. It’s now known also that the coelacanth has some unique features. It gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals. (Surely evidence of having been designed.) Thus the finding of live coelacanths proved fatal to the idea that such were a ‘transitional form’ from which amphibians (and subsequently land animals and birds) are descended.2


Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1955 on: Sun Feb 25, 2018 - 11:43:20 »
Quote
The species of huntsman spider found in amber is not known to exist today.   It is a new species of the genus Crassipes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21528355


http://www.icr.org/article/scan-amber-trapped-spider-shows-recent/

Quote
Scan of Amber-Trapped Spider Shows Recent Origin

A piece of oxygen-darkened amber was said to hold a particular arachnid, but it wasn't clearly visible. Scientists made a surprising discovery when a computed tomography scan was able to produce a finely detailed three-dimensional image of a hunting spider. But if the amber is actually 49 million years old, as is claimed, why hadn't it completely darkened long ago? And why do the spider's living relatives not show any signs of evolutionary change after all of this supposed time?

The amber was obviously much more translucent when first collected in the mid-1800s, but it had since oxidized and lost its transparency. Records indicated that it contained a certain kind of hunting spider, "but this seemed strange as huntsman spiders are strong, quick animals that would be unlikely to be trapped in tree resin."1 Scientists needed a way to closely examine the inclusion, and computed tomography (CT) provided the answer.................................

The specimen was collected from the famous Baltic amber deposits and first described in 1854. Since then, oxygen has reacted with the biopolymer that comprises the amber, causing it to darken. This raises a serious doubt about this fossil's age assignment. If this much discoloration can occur in less than 160 years, then what stopped it from having occurred during the previous 49 million years?

All rocks are porous, some more than others. And there are no known rock types that are able to totally block oxygen from passing through them. So even if the most oxygen-gas-flow-resistant earth material completely encased the Baltic amber for eons, the amber still should have turned black millions of years ago because of all the oxygen that would have leaked in during that time. This amber, like so many others, looks as though it is at most thousands, not millions, of years old.3

Also, one would expect evolution to have at least transformed the huntsman spider into a different species of spider, if not a completely different creature, after 49 million years. After all, mutations occur relentlessly, and according to Darwin, "nature" constantly selects the fittest of the mutants. But the high-resolution details of the outer surface of this specimen were sufficient to easily identify it as virtually identical to the modern species Eusparassus crassipes.2


There seems to be a discrepancy between your article and mine. I didn't actually see where your article said the spider in amber was unknown today or of a different species as you say, though I might miss such concerning scientific terminology. Are they virtually identical, or completely different and different species?

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1956 on: Sun Feb 25, 2018 - 17:43:40 »
Quote
Expound. How would creatures not changing over time be a problem for creationists?

Because creationists acknowledge the fact of speciation.  Why some populations would change, and not others, is a dark mystery to them.  But Darwin pointed out why natural selection would do this in unchanging environments.

Quote
Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically?

Because, as Darwin pointed out, natural selection will prevent evolution for well-adapted populations in unchanging environments, and cause evolution in those where it's changing.

It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason.  If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution.  Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time.  Coelacanths are a good example of this.

Quote
Wrong!

No, it's quite right.  Where environments have not changed much (such as in deep oceans) we see very little change in many organisms, such as coelacanths.  However, they have changed to a degree, even there.  As you learned, the species of coelacanths living today are not found in the fossil record.

Quote
Even evolutionists acknowledge major changes between the ancient world as they see it, and our existing one.

How do you think environmental conditions in the deep oceans have changed?   

Quote
These major changes involved the catastrophic extinction of dinosaurs and countless other animals and species including a great many sea creatures.

It's not quite what you've been led to believe. 

Phytoplankton-dependent benthic foraminifera on the deep-sea floor, however, did not suffer significant extinction, suggesting that export productivity persisted at a level sufficient to support their populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271934/

Quote
These facts alone at the very least completely changed the environment Coelacanths lived in.

As you now see, the depths of the oceans didn't have that kind of extinction event, except where acidification was an issue.  However, it could be the reason that modern coelacanths are different than ancient ones. 

Quote
Do you deny these claims of major changes by evolutionists

See above.  You've been misled about what they say.
 

 
Quote
No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years

Barbarian observes:
 Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then.  They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record.  They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.

Quote
Even according to your faulty understanding, this means the fish were not extinct but simply continued to change.

Not very much.  But then, they were in an environment that didn't change very much.

Quote
Or, how do you know fossils of these coelacanths just haven't been found yet?

Seems unlikely.   Even in a constant environment, some changes should occur from neutral mutations.

Quote
The following is of some significance as well.

https://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no

Quote
For example, evolutionists once said that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was explained that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land.

No.  Coelacanths are related closely to the fish that gave rise to tetrapods, but there is no evidence that coelacanths ever used fins to walk.  They use them to swim.

Quote
As long as the coelacanth was ‘extinct’,

There is no such species as "the coelacanth."   It's a very large group, comprised of many species, only two of which seem to have survived.  Almost every species of coelacanth is now extinct.

Quote
But with the discovery of a living coelacanth in 1938 and their subsequent observation, it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming.

Scientists knew this long before living coelacanths were found.  Closely related fish, with functional legs, existed long before the modern species.  As you just learned, it wasn't coelacanths, but a related group that adapted to walking on the bottom of ponds.

Quote
Thus the finding of live coelacanths proved fatal to the idea that such were a ‘transitional form’ from which amphibians (and subsequently land animals and birds) are descended.

And now you know better.  Your source had no more idea of how it worked than you do.




KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1957 on: Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 00:35:21 »
Still haven't seen any evidence for evolution outside of speciation.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Manna: 26
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1958 on: Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 05:38:04 »
Because creationists acknowledge the fact of speciation.  Why some populations would change, and not others, is a dark mystery to them.  But Darwin pointed out why natural selection would do this in unchanging environments.

Because, as Darwin pointed out, natural selection will prevent evolution for well-adapted populations in unchanging environments, and cause evolution in those where it's changing.

It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason.  If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution.  Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time.  Coelacanths are a good example of this.

No, it's quite right.  Where environments have not changed much (such as in deep oceans) we see very little change in many organisms, such as coelacanths.  However, they have changed to a degree, even there.  As you learned, the species of coelacanths living today are not found in the fossil record.

How do you think environmental conditions in the deep oceans have changed?   

It's not quite what you've been led to believe. 

Phytoplankton-dependent benthic foraminifera on the deep-sea floor, however, did not suffer significant extinction, suggesting that export productivity persisted at a level sufficient to support their populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271934/

As you now see, the depths of the oceans didn't have that kind of extinction event, except where acidification was an issue.  However, it could be the reason that modern coelacanths are different than ancient ones. 

See above.  You've been misled about what they say.
 

 
Barbarian observes:
 Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then.  They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record.  They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.

Not very much.  But then, they were in an environment that didn't change very much.

Seems unlikely.   Even in a constant environment, some changes should occur from neutral mutations.

https://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no

No.  Coelacanths are related closely to the fish that gave rise to tetrapods, but there is no evidence that coelacanths ever used fins to walk.  They use them to swim.

There is no such species as "the coelacanth."   It's a very large group, comprised of many species, only two of which seem to have survived.  Almost every species of coelacanth is now extinct.

Scientists knew this long before living coelacanths were found.  Closely related fish, with functional legs, existed long before the modern species.  As you just learned, it wasn't coelacanths, but a related group that adapted to walking on the bottom of ponds.

And now you know better.  Your source had no more idea of how it worked than you do.

No one has seen the evolution you espouse, and no one ever will. It is all speculation about the unobservable past, and unending attempts to prove the theory by examples of changes of adaption and or microevolution observable today. Both of which are mechanisms put in place by God at creation by design, according to His foreknowledge of the need of the same in this world which would be subject to major changes over time. Creationists have no problem with species remaining unchanged over time if or when they have no need to do so. You and the other self proclaimed experts of evolution are not God or gods. Nothing is so just because you said it. You have proved nothing, my mind is not changed on the matter, and I do not accordingly know better now by way of any change in my mind simply because you said so. This is a figment of your own imagination just like the theory of evolution, not related to fact at all.

Online 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6715
  • Manna: 202
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1959 on: Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 05:40:29 »
Still haven't seen any evidence for evolution outside of speciation.
I suspect you probably have seen evidence other than speciation but either reject it or don't understand it.

 

     
anything