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

[Sparks]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I thought you were trying to make them out to be two different events.  

They are two different events.

[Sparks]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's wrong, too.   They show the evidence that scientists have found there.    And no, "they are lying, all of them are lying!" is not an argument.   If you you'd like to challenge any of that, name one thing, and we'll look at the details.

It does not matter what they have found there.  It's not evidence that there was a Pangea.  Satellite photos are required.  If you have none, then you have no evidence of Pangea.

I would settle for a working time machine.

 

[The Barbarian]

18 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It does not matter what they have found there.

Sorry, reality does count.   The dodge that we can't know anything we didn't actually observe fails on all sorts of levels.  

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's not evidence that there was a Pangea. 

No point in denial.   Even most creationists now admit the fact. 

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Satellite photos are required.

All we need is the evidence.  And evidence from several different kinds of data all show the same things.  

22 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I would settle for a working time machine.

Doesn't matter what you'd settle for.   The evidence clearly shows that the continents have moved.   And we know precisely why they move.   

 

[The Barbarian]

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They are two different events.

Not according to scripture.   I asked you to explain why you think so,and you declined to say.   Can you show us why these verses, which seem to describe the same event, actually describe different events?

 

[one.opinion]

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

Don't mistake my not playing fetch the stick with my refusing to view something.  If you have evidence, state it and back it.

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.

14 hours ago, Sparks said:

It shows NO common ancestor.  We have no common ancestor.  Again, speculation.  You have debunked nothing.

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.

[Sparks]

2 minutes 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.

Finally, an attempt at showing evidence.  Thank you!  I will look this over.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Not according to scripture.   I asked you to explain why you think so,and you declined to say.   Can you show us why these verses, which seem to describe the same event, actually describe different events?

I am sorry that you don't understand this, but you are staring right at the evidence.

Thanks for the chat.

[Sparks]

31 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The evidence clearly shows that the continents have moved.   And we know precisely why they move.  

There is no evidence of Pangea.  It's a theory.   It was nice chatting with you.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

There is no evidence of Pangea.  It's a theory.   It was nice chatting with you.

Theories are built on evidence.

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Theories are built on evidence.

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