Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

There is no evidence of Pangea.    

Other than fossil evidence, mountain ranges, geomagnetic data, observed movement of continents, the fact that the continental shelves fit nicely together when fitted on maps, and so on.  This is how we know it was once one large continent.

 

[The Barbarian]

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yeah, so where is the evidence for the Oort cloud?

Observation of long term comets.   We can tell which objects approaching the Sun are orbiting it, and which are coming in from outside the system.

The Geometry of Orbits:Ellipses, Parabolas, and Hyperbolas

Because of Kepler's laws, we can find the aphelion, the farthest distance from the Sun in the object's orbit.   So we know how far out these comets are when when they begin their motion toward the Sun, and thereby we know the minimum dimensions of the cloud.   

We know it's a cloud and not a disk, since long-term comets appear from every direction in the sky, not just alone the plane of the solar system as short-term comets from the Kuiper Belt do.

Edited April 17, 2021 by The Barbarian

[JohnR7]

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

What are you talking about?

I am sharing a scripture that talks about the perfect day. The normal response is for you to read the scripture and share with us your understanding or interpretation of that scripture. In this case we are talking about the perfect day and how that compares with a day in Genesis chapter one.  

[JohnR7]

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

There is no evidence of Pangea.

You have a different explanation for why we have mountains today? You know more than people that have a PhD in geology?  

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

I am sharing a scripture that talks about the perfect day. The normal response is for you to read the scripture and share with us your understanding or interpretation of that scripture. In this case we are talking about the perfect day and how that compares with a day in Genesis chapter one.  

Perhaps if you see it in a different context?

Proverbs 4:18-19 (NLT)

18 The way of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn,
which shines ever brighter until the full light of day.

19 But the way of the wicked is like total darkness.
They have no idea what they are stumbling over.

[teddyv]

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

Yeah, so where is the evidence for the Oort cloud?

You love your red herrings, don't you?

[The Barbarian]

27 minutes ago, teddyv said:

You love your red herrings, don't you?

Some creationists teach that evolution is about the Oort cloud.   It is kind of a red herring, but the ironic thing is, there is massive evidence showing that it exists.

 

[Sparks]

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

You love your red herrings, don't you?

Nope, just saying a big theory there that has not a shred of proof.  We cannot see it with the most powerful telescopes.  It's non-existent, but taught.  Silly, eh?

Therefore, theories really don't have to be based on evidence.  Point proven.

[Sparks]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Your reluctance to actually read anything related to my point really doesn't support your claim that you are open minded. That's fine. It just doesn't do much to support your credibility. However, in case anyone reading is interested, I'll give some more details.

One of the early reports on the Human Genome Project (reference here) showed a little over 200,000 different identified endogenous retrovirus (ERV) sequences. A few years later, the chimpanzee genome was also sequenced (reference here). When comparing genomes, researchers discovered that 279 ERV sequences were specific to chimpanzees and 82 where specific to humans. As I mentioned earlier, a number of ERVs were expected to be specific to one genome or the other since acquisition of infection and eventual fixation in the genomes would be expected since divergence of the two lineages is hypothesized to have occurred about 5 million years ago (more on this later). So if we do the math, 361 out of 200,000 works out about 0.17% difference when we look at the compared ERV profiles of humans vs chimps. Or if we flip that around, 99.83% similarity. Alignment of the two genomes confirms that those 99.83% figure really does represent sequences that are in the same chromosomal position and have very similar DNA sequences.

Now on to the lineage split time estimate. The best tool scientists have available for estimating the date of the lineage split is the "molecular clock". The concept is pretty simple, but it is more difficult to put into practice. You may remember an equation from a physical science class that distance = rate x time (d=rt). Of course, this can be re-written as t=d/r. Distance, in this case, is the genetic distance between two sequences and rate is the calculable mutation rate. The distance value and rate value can differ a bit, depending on what sequence is being analyzed, so scientists have been very careful to select many reasonable sequences, rather just relying on a small number, to build that clock. One landmark paper in 2001 (reference here) used 53 sequences that were intergenic (between genes) and non-repetitive (to prevent any skewing of the numbers) to try to accurately measure the rate of divergence in DNA sequences not under any selective pressure. Recognizing that this technique may not be highly precise, the authors estimated that the divergence between the two lineages occurred somewhere in the range of 4.6 to 6.2 million years ago. The fossil record for the human lineage is more complete than the chimpanzee lineage, but the fossil evidence is also consistent with this particular window. Regarding the rate value calculations, estimates from the early 2000s have been further supported by the more recent ability to sequence DNA from Neanderthal remains.

You are misunderstanding this point. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. The MRCA is the same species. Picture some guy named Frank Smith tracing his family tree back, including all the current cousins he could identify, and finding the one guy where the surname "Smith" came from. That Smith would be the most recent common ancestor to Frank and all his cousins. In Frank's case, and in the case of the mtDNA barcoding, the MRCA is still the same species. And also like Frank's case, finding that MRCA does not mean that there were not any Smiths in previous generations. The study just does not mean what think it means. Additionally, it makes zero sense to use something you don't believe as argumentative evidence. It is like me arguing that the existence of Santa Claus means that the Tooth Fairy isn't real.

Alright, so I looked into this including the original link you posted.  That guy Scott writes well, and I enjoyed his blog.  I might even return to read more from him, so thanks for that.

But, as I suspected, scientists have jumped to the wrong conclusions.  I find that it's always the case concerning evolution studies when you dig deep enough.  

So, ERVs (endogenous retrovirus) do indeed appear in the same spots in chimps and humans and so some declare, therefore, that we must have the same common ancestor as the chimp.  But since at least since 1998, scientists have known that ERVs like to choose certain favored positions to place themselves.  This means we don't have to be related to chimps, at all, to have ERVs in the same locations as chimps.

"But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing, practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified 'hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically."  -Eugene D. Sverdlov, "Perpetually Mobile Footprints of AncientInfections in Human Genome," FEBS Letters, Vol. 428, Issues 1-2, May 22, 1998, p. 1-6

"[D]ifferent retroviruses have clear preferences for integration in or near particular chromosomal features... Research into the mechanisms of retroviral integration site selection has shed light on the phenomena of insertional mutagenesis and viral latency."  -M.K. Lewinski & F.D. Bushman, "Retroviral DNA Integration--Mechanism and Consequences," PubMed.gov, Infectious Disease Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 2005;55:147-81, PMID: 16291214

There you have it.  ERVs like to choose their 'hot spots' and these scientists have known it for at least 23 years.  We don't have to be related, at all, to chimps or zebras or whatever, to have the same ERV locations, between 'kinds.' 

Conclusion:  Based on easy research, I am not convinced that we come from apes, or even some common ancestor based on the presented ERV 'evidence.'

I do appreciate the challenge though. 

[Whyme]

How does a piece of dung become fossilized?