Creationism Debate May Hit Pennsylvania in Upcoming Legislation

[MarkNigro]

 

Seems only one person is confused, that would be the one claiming to have tons of transitional fossils.

 

How?  Did you see the material I posted on the fossil record of Foraminifera?  Just in that taxon alone there are "tons" of transitional fossils.  How do you account for that?  

 

Are you suggesting that you know more about the researchers' work than they do?

 

Can you provide me the dates (how many years ago) that a transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature?

 

How about a link between the dinosaurs and some other creature?

[JDavis]

Seems only one person is confused, that would be the one claiming to have tons of transitional fossils.

How? Did you see the material I posted on the fossil record of Foraminifera? Just in that taxon alone there are "tons" of transitional fossils. How do you account for that?

Are you suggesting that you know more about the researchers' work than they do?

So, you personally have "tons" of Foraminifera fossils?

[MarkNigro]

 

 

Seems only one person is confused, that would be the one claiming to have tons of transitional fossils.

How? Did you see the material I posted on the fossil record of Foraminifera? Just in that taxon alone there are "tons" of transitional fossils. How do you account for that?

Are you suggesting that you know more about the researchers' work than they do?

So, you personally have "tons" of Foraminifera fossils?

 

I asked for the dates of just one of these tons. I asked for the dates (how many years ago) that the transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature.

 

There is none I guess.

[JDavis]

 

So, you personally have "tons" of Foraminifera fossils?

 

See, this is the problem with answering challenges from creationists.  You guys post all sorts of "Oh yeah?  Well show me X!"  And then when I show you X, you come up with some lame reason to wave it away.  Half the time my posts are met with nothing more than essentially, "No it isn't".

 

I've posted the observed evolution of new species

 

I've posted a description of the fossil record of an entire taxon where "tons" of transitional fossils exist

 

I've posted examples of the observed evolution of "higher life forms", increased complexity, new genetic information, and new functions

 

 

 

perhaps the issue is with the wording you use.  When you say you "found" something I assume you went out and found them.  It seems you have a different meaning to the word that how I use it.

 

As for the foraminifera, they did leave a lot of fossils that is for sure.  The problem for you is that they never really changed from being foraminifera, they are just different Foraminifera. 

 

Now, if you have a few fossils that show the foraminifera becoming an oak tree or a bumble bee then you might be on to something.

 

See, for macro evolution to work an organism has to become a totally different organism.  Remember all life, according to evolution, came from the same single ancestor.  So you need to demonstrate how the same organism can become an oak tree, a bumble bee, a virus and a human.   your friend the foraminifera does not really lead to the conclusion.

[JDavis]

 

 

I'm going to be completely honest with you here.  What you just said above is ridiculously ignorant (remember, I'm talking about what you said).  No one in the history of evolutionary biology has ever proposed that a foram "became an oak tree".  Anyone who would suggest such a thing is either very, very ignorant of the basics of not only evolution, but biology as a whole, or is being deliberately dishonest.

 

 

 

thank you for being honest, I honestly appreciate it.  And yes, it was a ridiculous statement, but remember this, while nobody has said that a foram became an oak tree, they have said that the foram and the oak tree have the same ancestor, along with the bumble bee and every single living thing on the planet.

 

So, since the basic tenet of evolution is that everything that lives, or has ever lived on our planet came from the same ancestor, you will forgive more for asking for something a bit more than foram becoming a different kind of foram?  

 

The changes that are show by the " transitional fossils"of the foraminifera would never, ever lead to the kind of diversity that evolution requires to support the basic tenet above.

[nebula]

So much for this thread not rehashing the same endlessly circular debates on evolution vs. creationism.

[JDavis]

Well that's kind of my point. I've been doing these discussions for years and they almost always follow the same pattern.

Creationist: X has never happened.

Evolutionist: Here's several examples of X.

Creationist: That's not X.

Evolutionist: Yes it is. The titles of the papers are "Observations of X".

Creationist: But it's not Y.

Evolutionist: You didn't say anything about Y. Nevertheless, here's Y.

Creationist: That's not Y.

Evolutionist: Yes it is. The paper clearly describes how it's Y.

....and so on ad nauseum.

While that's a standard pattern, I do think with each new conversation it probably does need to happen in order to clearly demonstrate the nature of the differences between the two sides. It very clearly shows that while the evolutionist values data and science, the creationist doesn't and is only asking for X or Y because he thinks the evolutionist won't provide them, because his religious beliefs dictate that X and Y can't exist.

Those are two polar opposite mindsets and approaches, and as long as these differences aren't directly addressed and dealt with, any "conversation" will only go in circles.

That's why I've been trying to get past the "Show me X" part and into the deeper issues. Sadly, I've also discovered over the years that very, very few creationists are willing to go there.

Have you ever stopped to think you are as dogmatic and unresponsive as those you rant against?

Are you here to possibily learn something or just to preach to us?

[nebula]

Gerald, the problem with the discussion above is that you look at a simple organism in one layer of the fossil record, and then see more complex organisms in the next layer of the fossil record - and it makes complete sense to you that the more complex evolved from the less complex organism. The other side considers how many changes must have occured between the two organisms and have a hard time believing the evolutionary change when there are no fossil records showing the species population in the various stages of the change.

 

We don't see animal species progressin, we see this fossil layer had these creatures, and this fossil layer had these creatures. Why is there no fossil record covering the gap between the changed layers? All fossils of a species within a fossil layer are the same, are they not? So when did these evolutionary changes take place? Or were there millions of years between fossil layer deposits?

 

It's one thing to believe the populations of snails we have today arose from prehistoric snails. But to believe that mammals evolved from reptiles - huh? How does a a creature survive ina  state of mutating from cold-blooded to warm-blooded? We're talking brain signaling changes as well as anatomical changes to the skin.

[JDavis]

I am trying to learn something. I'm trying to get past the "challenge games" I described and delve into the actual root of this issue. But every time I try and do so, someone (e.g. you) ignores that part and focuses on the "challenge game" (as you did in your ).

I can't force anyone to discuss something.

As far as being "dogmatic", I can understand how it comes across that way. But when we're discussing the science of evolutionary biology there are some things that are simply established fact and no amount of hand-waving, special pleading, or gainsaying will change that.

You make the same mistake that Mark makes, you claim things as fact when they are not.

To say something is a transitional fossil is not a fact, it is one view of the evidence.

[MarkNigro]

 

Gerald, the problem with the discussion above is that you look at a simple organism in one layer of the fossil record, and then see more complex organisms in the next layer of the fossil record - and it makes complete sense to you that the more complex evolved from the less complex organism. The other side considers how many changes must have occured between the two organisms and have a hard time believing the evolutionary change when there are no fossil records showing the species population in the various stages of the change.

 

We don't see animal species progressin, we see this fossil layer had these creatures, and this fossil layer had these creatures. Why is there no fossil record covering the gap between the changed layers? All fossils of a species within a fossil layer are the same, are they not? So when did these evolutionary changes take place? Or were there millions of years between fossil layer deposits?

 

It's one thing to believe the populations of snails we have today arose from prehistoric snails. But to believe that mammals evolved from reptiles - huh? How does a a creature survive ina  state of mutating from cold-blooded to warm-blooded? We're talking brain signaling changes as well as anatomical changes to the skin.

 

You're demonstrating my point for me.  I've already provided information on a virtually complete fossil record of an entire phylum, complete with step-by-step species and subspecies-level changes.  The record is so complete the researchers stated...

 

"We've got a relatively complete library.  The 'books' are in excellent shape. You can see every page, every word." (analogizing between the fossil record and a library)

 

"Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion."

 

So I've provided exactly what you creationists keep insisting doesn't exist, yet no one has directly addressed the data (except to laughably argue "But they didn't turn into an oak tree"), let alone actually read the material they asked for.

 

What am I to do at this point?  Keep banging my head against the wall trying to get creationists to even look at the data?  Nope, not interested.  What interests me is getting into the core "why" issues.  But no one seems at all willing to go there.

 

The problem is all dating is based on a religious assumption.

 

Please provide actually dates of events.