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

[one.opinion]

32 minutes ago, Sparks said:

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?

I've been trying for hours to get you to pick one example. Try to be specific. Earlier today it was muscles, circulatory systems, bones (and something else I can't remember). I replied that many invertebrates have muscles and circulatory systems without bones. Thus, the one very vague example you used was easily refuted. Do try to use a single, specific example.

[Sparks]

22 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I've been trying for hours to get you to pick one example. Try to be specific. Earlier today it was muscles, circulatory systems, bones (and something else I can't remember). I replied that many invertebrates have muscles and circulatory systems without bones. Thus, the one very vague example you used was easily refuted. Do try to use a single, specific example.

All the examples where "which came first" examples, of which the answer was always none came first since if anything was missing from the animal, the animal would not function, and die.

Maybe I should say, which evolved first in a frog?  It's blood, or the heart to pump the blood around inside the frog, or veins and the skin to hold the blood inside the frog?

Or did God just make the frog as fully functional in the blink of an eye?

In one case, irreducible complexity prevents the frog from ever surviving long enough to reproduce because it's parts have not evolved yet enough to keep it alive.  In the other, a designer made a fully functional frog, instantly.

Specific enough?

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

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

Nope.   New species.  "Kind" is so vague and changeable, it has no meaning whatever. 

[one.opinion]

45 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Maybe I should say, which evolved first in a frog?  It's blood, or the heart to pump the blood around inside the frog, or veins and the skin to hold the blood inside the frog?

Scientific evidence suggests that the first circulatory systems were vey ancient. These consisted of first allowing seawater to flow through body cavities, bringing dissolved nutrients with it. Muscles developed to help increase the rate and efficiency of flow through the body. These fluid propelling muscles developed into hearts. Terrestrial animals obviously no longer had seawater available, so needed to contain fluids in the body that could help distribute nutrients. Insects have open circulatory systems with hearts that simply circulate hemolymph throughout the body cavity. Closed circulatory systems (with complete vessels) are seen in annelids (earthworm and relatives), some cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc), and vertebrates. So it seems that heart, blood, then blood vessels. We can see from simple and direct observation that not all of these anatomical parts are required at the same time - thus they do NOT comprise an irreducibly complex system.

[Guest kingdombrat]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

These are incidental to the theological points that I listed earlier. We can agree on the important theological points, while disagreeing on the minutiae. If figurative language is used in Genesis as I believe it is, it is hardly the only portion of the Bible that does so.

Can you point out these examples of [figurative Language] for me?

I am interested in the void of information given that allows us to wonder new directions or specifics?

I am familiar with the none specifics to what constitutes a day, other than once there was a Sun/Moon, there was no sunrise/set just the [Light] Himself, our Creator.

I suppose that leaves room for how long is the period between the Beginning and the start of day ONE where it was complete Darkness/Light of God before the Command "Let there be Light."

But I am interested in your choice of Verses to explain where you believe it can be understood as [figurative]. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

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?

It's astonishing that anyone would think evolution requires such a thing.   What gave you that idea?

[Sparks]

59 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Scientific evidence suggests that the first circulatory systems were vey ancient. These consisted of first allowing seawater to flow through body cavities, bringing dissolved nutrients with it. Muscles developed to help increase the rate and efficiency of flow through the body. These fluid propelling muscles developed into hearts. Terrestrial animals obviously no longer had seawater available, so needed to contain fluids in the body that could help distribute nutrients. Insects have open circulatory systems with hearts that simply circulate hemolymph throughout the body cavity. Closed circulatory systems (with complete vessels) are seen in annelids (earthworm and relatives), some cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc), and vertebrates. So it seems that heart, blood, then blood vessels. We can see from simple and direct observation that not all of these anatomical parts are required at the same time - thus they do NOT comprise an irreducibly complex system.

Being that evolution has no leadership, no inventor, no intelligent designer, and no reason to 'evolve' at all, why did this happen? 

I don't think there is any evidence that suggest this, but just someones further speculation. 

DNA barcoding seems to suggest that we all showed up at about the same time, meaning birds, dogs, cats, fully formed, and let's not forget humans.  Keep in mind the DNA barcoding project was done by an evolutionist, not a creationist.  Don't worry, there are many already suggesting 'fast evolution' now.  HAHA 

Here is your white paper on it.  I had to laugh when I saw the author's note at the top.  He got a lot of heat for this discovery and had to back peddle:

Why should mitochondria define species? - White Paper

For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.

That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

So much for billions of years.

 

[one.opinion]

55 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Being that evolution has no leadership, no inventor, no intelligent designer, and no reason to 'evolve' at all, why did this happen? 

You have fundamentally misunderstood me. I think evolution most definitely has leadership - God Himself! I believe these things happened because God set them up to happen that way.

I've dismantled multiple arguments you've raised already today, while you simply ignore the dismantling and move on to your next argument. I'll refute your claim here, and I'm sure there is another one on the list you will move onto without even a hint of acknowledgement that your argument is deeply flawed.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are unaware that the mistaken claim of "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago" was not written by the author but a pop science writer, where headlines are often desired at the expense of accuracy. The study absolutely did NOT make this conclusion.

The barcoding was done on a single gene, cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) in the mitochondrial DNA. I assume you are aware that mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother. What the barcoding work did was estimate the time of the most recent common ancestor, or the most recent female that was the "matriarch" of all living members of that species today. This date estimation can give a minimum time that a species has been on the planet, but cannot give a maximum time. The MRCA concept is usually applied to multiple species in a phylogenetic tree, but the following diagram may help illustrate the point. Just think "individuals", rather than "species" at the bottom right of the figure.

There are certainly older members of the species, but the barcoding cannot trace back past the MRCA. 

Bottom line - absolutely not, the barcoding work does not show that 90% of all extant species are 100,000 to 200,000 years old. Again, this claim was NOT made by the authors of the study. What this shows is that the MRCA for roughly 90% of species is between 100,000 to 200,000 years old.

Edited March 30, 2021 by one.opinion

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

Being that evolution has no leadership, no inventor, no intelligent designer, and no reason to 'evolve' at all, why did this happen?

Natural selection.   God is a lot wiser and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

I don't think there is any evidence that suggest this,

Direct observation.   Can't do better than that.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

DNA barcoding seems to suggest that we all showed up at about the same time, meaning birds, dogs, cats, fully formed

No.  It's mitochondrial DNA which has nothing to do with the DNA in the nucleus of cells.   It suggests that most (but not all) of the current species on earth are about the same age, which is what the "molecular clock" that verifies evolution is based on.   The relatively few exceptions (apparently 10%) to this are populations that were in environments that changed rapidly, which meant they had to evolve rapidly, or population that have been around a long time in a constant environment,and genes indicate that they are very old.   And since we directly observe speciation, this is confirmed to be the case.

You've confused species, which do change rapidly in geologic time, with higher taxa that are more stable.

Moreover, our own mitochondrial DNA indicates our current population evolved about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.  Which is about what the fossil record indicates.  And the researcher found that some species were a lot older.    So much for YE creationism.

Did you really think this would undermine evolutionary theory?

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Scientific evidence suggests that the first circulatory systems were vey ancient. These consisted of first allowing seawater to flow through body cavities, bringing dissolved nutrients with it. Muscles developed to help increase the rate and efficiency of flow through the body. These fluid propelling muscles developed into hearts. Terrestrial animals obviously no longer had seawater available, so needed to contain fluids in the body that could help distribute nutrients. Insects have open circulatory systems with hearts that simply circulate hemolymph throughout the body cavity. Closed circulatory systems (with complete vessels) are seen in annelids (earthworm and relatives), some cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc), and vertebrates. So it seems that heart, blood, then blood vessels. We can see from simple and direct observation that not all of these anatomical parts are required at the same time - thus they do NOT comprise an irreducibly complex system.

We clearly see randomness within the circulatory systems.   Your view is that God did not individually choose how each [specific] system would work, for each test subjects mentioned.   But, that He provided the options for these to be the outcome.   Then He allowed Randomness, Chance, Natural Selection to choose which system was assigned to its Host?

 

If God knows the [End from the Beginning][Alpha/Omega - Beginning/the End], He is still Predestining what/who is assigned to.  So then, your View is what looks like Chaos and Accident, in reality (to You), is God's Intelligent Design?