- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 8,801
diamondbp said:We should all be honest with ourselves that fossils can't provide as much information as we would like to act like they do.
Consider this. Let's say that all modern dog species went extinct 20 million years ago and we never witness a single live canine of any kind. All we had were dog fossils to go by in building the "story" of dog evolution. If we found skulls of Chihuahuas on another continent from Great Dane skulls then modern science would NEVER EVER EVER CONCLUDE that they were from the exact same species. And to say otherwise is being silly. The only reason we know that all dogs are of the same species is because we have WITNESSED their incredible genetic diversity ALREADY BUILT IN to their genetics. But if dogs had went extinct millions of years ago we would have modern scientist building multiple elaborate "stories" of how different dog species were connected.
I believe the same unfortunate thing happens with all other families of animals......even turtles and tortoises. I don't doubt for a minute that hingebacks and redfoot/yellowfoots came from a common ancestor. How and why that happened will always be somewhat of a mystery.That much we can undoubtedly conclude. But to go any further than that and say that tortoises evolved from a "non tortoise" animal is to jump right into total speculation and not real science.
http://creationrevolution.com/2010/10/dogs-big-problem-for-fossil-record/
diamondbp said:We should all be honest with ourselves that fossils can't provide as much information as we would like to act like they do.
Consider this. Let's say that all modern dog species went extinct 20 million years ago and we never witness a single live canine of any kind. All we had were dog fossils to go by in building the "story" of dog evolution. If we found skulls of Chihuahuas on another continent from Great Dane skulls then modern science would NEVER EVER EVER CONCLUDE that they were from the exact same species. And to say otherwise is being silly. The only reason we know that all dogs are of the same species is because we have WITNESSED their incredible genetic diversity ALREADY BUILT IN to their genetics. But if dogs had went extinct millions of years ago we would have modern scientist building multiple elaborate "stories" of how different dog species were connected.
I believe the same unfortunate thing happens with all other families of animals......even turtles and tortoises. I don't doubt for a minute that hingebacks and redfoot/yellowfoots came from a common ancestor. How and why that happened will always be somewhat of a mystery.That much we can undoubtedly conclude. But to go any further than that and say that tortoises evolved from a "non tortoise" animal is to jump right into total speculation and not real science.
http://creationrevolution.com/2010/10/dogs-big-problem-for-fossil-record/
zenoandthetortoise said:And indeed it is replete, from fish with feet to reptiles with feathers and birds with teeth, but I don't think anyone since Archimedes has yelled 'Eureka' with any conviction.
cdmay said:zenoandthetortoise said:And indeed it is replete, from fish with feet to reptiles with feathers and birds with teeth, but I don't think anyone since Archimedes has yelled 'Eureka' with any conviction.
OK, since I'm not an evolutionist nor scientist and thus according to you am not qualified to debate the subject, I will let real, out-of-the-closet evolutionists speak for me. Sound OK to you?
Regarding the fossil record being 'replete' with transitional forms of life Darwin himself wrote,
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.â€
From Botanist Heribert Nilsson, “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.â€
From D.B. Grower Biochemist commenting in Scientists Reject Evolution,
“The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.â€
Also from Scientists Reject Evolution Zoologist Harold Coffin, “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.â€
From the Discover magazine article The Tortoise or the Hare, . "Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct."
"“Species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.†From the Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History.
From New Scientist,
"Evolution predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time. Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.â€
From Processes of Organic Evolution,
“No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.â€
“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
The New Evolutionary Timetable
“Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.â€
From On Growth and Form
BOLD highlights are mine
Zeno I agree with you on this point: It is best not to embarrass oneself by pretending to know something that you don't.
So I let the people smarter than me (and presumably you) do the talking.
zenoandthetortoise said:Maybe this informative illustration can bring the discussion back go the original topic[
attachment=68961]
zenoandthetortoise said:Maybe this informative illustration can bring the discussion back go the original topic[
attachment=68961]
N2TORTS said:zenoandthetortoise said:Maybe this informative illustration can bring the discussion back go the original topic[
attachment=68961]
Now Steve .....ya Know it went more like this .......
“You must keep my rules. Do not crossbreed your livestock, do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, and do not wear clothes made from two kinds of materialâ€. Leviticus 19:19
OOOPPSS…….