Evolution, fossil record question

[nebula]

Just trying to make sense of how this works out.

Evolution is about gradual change - right?

Yet, the fossil record shows fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, followed by a layer of fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, and so on. (I say mostly, because I am assuming there are crocodile/alligator fossils in with the dinosaur fossils, and a few fish have been found that were thought to be extinct based on fossil).

So, I'm not getting the gradual change being defended by the fossil record.

It seems we see species (and that includes new class, order, family, and genus classifications) that didn't exist before in the newer layer. And among those fossils found, do we see evidence of speciation in the fossils of that layer?

I hope my question is conveying what I don't understand.

[Akabu]

I hope I can convey this to you properly to make it understandable. When looking at the "Geologic Column" you never see any species in the middle of becoming anything other than that same species. Evolutionists have never shown how any species can create anything other than itself. You can show dogs becoming other types of dogs (wolves, coyotes, dogs, so on) but they cannot show a dog becoming anything other than that. Same for cats, birds, fish and so on. You can see adaptations to the species like fish that can walk on thier flippers but there is NO proof that those "walking Fish" became anything with 4 legs that walk on land all the time and those same "walking fish always return to the water for the greater part of thier life. They claim that it happened, but they have no proof.

You said "the fossil record shows fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, followed by a layer of fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, and so on." They like to do that. Take for example the most know of all fossils the Trillobite. They claim those are extinct but there are many different trillobites found today from the warm waters of the Carribean to the fridgid waters of Northern Alaska. What about the extinct coelacanth? You know, that fish that was extinct but was found off of Madagascar where the locals said they have always had them. Just because scientists cant find something why is it assumed they are looking in the correct places in the first place?

Remember, if you have faith in evolution you are a scientist. If you have faith in God, you are a nut job.

Having quite a background in science I can take hours to show you ways that God made evolutionists look stupid, but I wont get into that on this board again after the bad feelings created last time I did that.

Let me throw something else in there to confuse you. My science books in school said that you can date the bones by the rocks they are found in. They also go on to say that they used the bones found in the layers to date the rocks.

Try going to a museum and ask how they date the layers. Depending on how you ask the question you will get both answers.

Do you see the circular logic?

More fun with evolutionists:

I grew up in a small town called Glen Rose Texas. There is a river there called the Paluxy. Back in the 30's I believe it was (the date is not important) there was a flood that ripped up a layer of limestone and dinosaur tracks were found. It is true, I have seen them and many anthropologists have done studies on them and even removed some for museums. Here is the fun part. In some areas there are human tracks running alongside, across, and even inside of these tracks. In many of these places the area is marked off limits. Why? because it puts a serious question to the evolution claim that dinosaurs were here "millions" of years BEFORE man.

[Hal P]

Just trying to make sense of how this works out.

Evolution is about gradual change - right?

Yes.

Yet, the fossil record shows fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, followed by a layer of fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, and so on. (I say mostly, because I am assuming there are crocodile/alligator fossils in with the dinosaur fossils, and a few fish have been found that were thought to be extinct based on fossil).

So, I'm not getting the gradual change being defended by the fossil record.

It is often said (although the precise accuracy of the statement is not easy to confirm) that 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct, so yes, we are looking at extinct organisms when we examine the fossil record. The pattern however is much more predictable than the seemingly random picture of disappearance and appearance you describe. We see that organisms with certain features become gradually more abundant and then radiate outwards in the record. Examples would be the development of tetrapods, as well as of mammals.

It seems we see species (and that includes new class, order, family, and genus classifications) that didn't exist before in the newer layer. And among those fossils found, do we see evidence of speciation in the fossils of that layer?

Speciation is not going to be that easy to observe precisely in the fossil record although there are certainly examples of it. This is largely due to the fact that speciation is thought to occur largely when geographical isolation occurs. As a result, what you will see in the fossil record is one population of organisms and then two separate populations appear that could be quite distinct by the time they reappear together in the record after their period of separation.

[Hal P]

I hope I can convey this to you properly to make it understandable. When looking at the "Geologic Column" you never see any species in the middle of becoming anything other than that same species. Evolutionists have never shown how any species can create anything other than itself. You can show dogs becoming other types of dogs (wolves, coyotes, dogs, so on) but they cannot show a dog becoming anything other than that. Same for cats, birds, fish and so on. You can see adaptations to the species like fish that can walk on thier flippers but there is NO proof that those "walking Fish" became anything with 4 legs that walk on land all the time and those same "walking fish always return to the water for the greater part of thier life. They claim that it happened, but they have no proof.

Akabu, you appear very deeply confused, not only about basic science but even simple defintions. The terms 'cats', 'birds', 'fish' and so on are not species. Evolution does not suggest that we should see "a dog becoming anything other than" a dog. What we can see, even today, is one species (as that term is properly, scientifically defined) becoming another.

You said "the fossil record shows fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, followed by a layer of fossils of animals that are all or mostly extinct, and so on." They like to do that. Take for example the most know of all fossils the Trillobite. They claim those are extinct but there are many different trillobites found today from the warm waters of the Carribean to the fridgid waters of Northern Alaska.

I am unaware of any Trilobites after the Permian, could you provide a source?

What about the extinct coelacanth? You know, that fish that was extinct but was found off of Madagascar where the locals said they have always had them. Just because scientists cant find something why is it assumed they are looking in the correct places in the first place?

It is a little more complicated than that. Besides the modern Coelacanth is not the same as those found in the fossil record.

Remember, if you have faith in evolution you are a scientist. If you have faith in God, you are a nut job.

Not at all, it is perfectly possible to have both.

Let me throw something else in there to confuse you. My science books in school said that you can date the bones by the rocks they are found in. They also go on to say that they used the bones found in the layers to date the rocks.

Try going to a museum and ask how they date the layers. Depending on how you ask the question you will get both answers.

Do you see the circular logic?

No, because this is not how it is done - despite what Kent Hovind says.

"When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences."

More fun with evolutionists:

I grew up in a small town called Glen Rose Texas. There is a river there called the Paluxy. Back in the 30's I believe it was (the date is not important) there was a flood that ripped up a layer of limestone and dinosaur tracks were found. It is true, I have seen them and many anthropologists have done studies on them and even removed some for museums. Here is the fun part. In some areas there are human tracks running alongside, across, and even inside of these tracks. In many of these places the area is marked off limits. Why? because it puts a serious question to the evolution claim that dinosaurs were here "millions" of years BEFORE man.

I suggest you stop using arguments that even Answersingenesis says "should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)."

[Akabu]

HalP,

I will attempt to answer you here even though I wanted to keep my posts short. Many people do not read long winded posts and I can't say as I blame them. To those people I apologize now....

First off. I wanted to become a paleo-anthrapologist at a small school called University of Chicago. After being saved I changed my mind, thinking I was wrong, but after talking to a professor at Liberty University I started looking at dinosaurs from a Biblical standpoint. As to Kent Hovind, I never studied with him and I dont believe he ever taught at Liberty (at least not that I know of).

So first thing is to DEFINE evolution. There are 6 accepted definitions:

1) Cosmic Evolution

[Fez]

There is no monkey.....

[nebula]

That's not actually true, just sticking with biology we actually have observed speciation (macroevolution), although it's time consuming and difficult to document.

Are you saying something on the level of a cat species evolving into a dog species, or a reptile evolving into a mammal, has been observed?

[nebula]

You're confusing me, Lurker.

[e lansing]

speciation is an observed reality.

Who's reality?

[wyguy]

speciation is an observed reality.

Whose reality?

Lurker's reality. There are no species observed that change into a different species (or "kind") There are varieties within kinds - but that's all.

Birds stay birds, dogs stay dogs, bears stay bears, and Lurkers stay Lurkers.