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

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I do see a lot of mistakes of scientists claiming micro as macro.  Micro-evolution is real by the way, but we never ever see macro.  You were describing micro in your prior post, above.

No, that's wrong.   Perhaps you don't know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.  Hint: it's not about horses gaining wings.   

What do you think the difference is?

 

[The Barbarian]

31 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I told you why fossils are made irrelevant to the evolution discussion.

Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise disagrees with you.   He writes:

"Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."

Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms DR KURT P. WISE

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

[Sparks]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

I repeat yet again that no scientist makes these claims. Refuting claims that no one makes is pointless.

That's what Macroevolution is, new kinds from other kinds.  It just does not happen. 

And a tiny change, usually a defect, is not macro, it's micro.

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

No, you made easily-refuted arguments that reflect virtually no understanding of the available data.

OK, so I cannot make you understand irreducible complexity.  Sorry about that.  I failed there.  But my claim stands.

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Ok, so accumulate enough of these genetic changes to turn a land-dwelling tetrapod mammal into a water-dwelling mammal with pectoral fins. You can call it micro or macro, but it describes the evolution of the cetaceans, one tiny bit at a time.

I don't see your evidence in that claim.  I do see some fine speculation, though.

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The fossil record is evident to anyone objective enough to consider it. Just because you are committed to NOT believing it doesn't make it false.

I admit fossils exist.  Probably billions of them, but it's stretch to call anything a 'fossil record.'  Much like the bogus geologic column, it takes a hefty imagination to make the claim that ANY fossil gave birth to anything, or is related.

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, Sparks said:

OK, so I cannot make you understand irreducible complexity.  Sorry about that.  I failed there.  But my claim stands.

I'm not going to continue to respond to your consistent misreadings of what I write. I do not believe, evidence aside, that you are too ignorant to understand plain English.

We have already agreed that irreducibly complex structures exist. What we disagree on is if they can evolve. I have challenged you twice to use a specific example, and I would show you how it could evolved and you have not responded. This is tiresome and not worth the time required for me to legitimately engage in meaningful dialogue.

[Sparks]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm not going to continue to respond to your consistent misreadings of what I write. I do not believe, evidence aside, that you are too ignorant to understand plain English.

We have already agreed that irreducibly complex structures exist. What we disagree on is if they can evolve. I have challenged you twice to use a specific example, and I would show you how it could evolved and you have not responded. This is tiresome and not worth the time required for me to legitimately engage in meaningful dialogue.

OK.  Cya.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

OK.  Cya.

So you aren't even going to try to prove your irreducible complexity point? Honestly, that surprises me a little. But that's ok, I understand.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I did.  It's Mendel's Law of Genetics.  In case you are not aware, Mendel discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance.  Basically, you cannot inherit anything that your parents don't have to offer you, like wings.

The humorous thing about your claim is that Mendel's discovery solved a major problem with Darwin's theory.    If inheritance was in the blood, as most biologists of the time assumed, it was difficult to see how a new trait would not be swamped in the population like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. 

Mendel showed that it was more like sorting beads than mixing paint, and Darwin's theory was saved.

And as you just learned, you can easily have traits not present in either of your parents.

 

 

[Sparks]

36 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

So you aren't even going to try to prove your irreducible complexity point? Honestly, that surprises me a little. But that's ok, I understand.

You said you not going to respond anymore, so I figured you meant it. 

I have run out of ways to tell you why animals cannot live, and procreate, with half of their anatomy missing.  What would you suggest to help you understand this?

[Guest kingdombrat]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yep.   That was easy, because the ankle bone showed that it was. Just as it does in humans.

Is it the placement of the bone when discovered [not pictured] that creates this fascination to make one believe this is a process of evolving?   What if the tissue was torn or injured during or before death and dislocated the position?   It's my understanding from those who are involved, they claim every other [same Specie] as Lucy ankle bone was positioned differently.   It almost alerts me to think Lucy had an ankle injury and it was dislocated.   

[Guest kingdombrat]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Still does.   Not long ago, a species of amoeba evolved an endosymbiosis with a species of bacteria.   Now, neither the bacteria nor the Amoebas can live without the other.  It's remarkably like the endosymbiosis we have with mitochondria.

You're claiming that the Amoeba is full of cells generating electrical and chemical impulses?   And these impulses stimulate the ability to understand the hosts weaknesses and it causes the Amoeba to change for proper adaption?   [No Brain Required]?