As has been stated before, when a fossil gets into the wrong layer, there is other evidence of disturbance that corroborates it. So, speaking of which, here’s a specific, potentially productive question: Do you have an example of a rabbit found in Cambrian strata (or similar) where there was no physical evidence of disturbance of the rocks but people just hand-waved away the evidence by saying, “Golly, this must have been one of them special geologic processes!”?
3 Likes
again- its just one explanation out of many. what is the problem to push species 600 my earlier or claiming that this species evolved by convergent evolution?
You’re not making sense to me, dcscccc.
I’m not aware of any species that has remained unchanged for 600 million years. So if you find a species 600 million years earlier than it’s supposed to exist, Houston, we have a problem.
Human remains in the Cambrian could not result from convergent evolution. As I understand, convergent evolution refers to traits, not entire species.
2 Likes
True. I admire your persistence and patience.
1 Like
we know about 200 my species almost without a change:
so i dont see any problem to push back 600 or 500 my some species.
convergent evolution also can be happan in the general shape:
270 is not 500.
Furthermore, you are playing fast and loose with the data. Let’s look at Wikipedia (emphasis added):
The ginkgo (Ginkgoales) is a living fossil, with fossils recognisably related to modern ginkgo from the Permian, dating back 270 million years.
and then,
Given the slow pace of evolution and morphological similarity between members of the genus, there may have been only one or two species existing in the Northern Hemisphere through the entirety of the Cenozoic: present-day G. biloba (including G. adiantoides) and G. gardneri from the Palaeocene of Scotland.
The Cenozoic is post-dinosaur-extinction. In other words, if you found a modern-day Ginkgo biloba in the Cambrian, this would be a big deal, similar to rabbits in the Cambrian. Just because the genus goes back 270 million years doesn’t mean the species are exactly the same. They’re not.
Exactly. Like I said, convergent evolution works at the level of traits. Shape is a trait, or a cluster of traits. Your comment actually strengthens my point. Did you have a counterargument to share?
[edited to fix typo]
1 Like
if its possible with 270 its also possible with 300 and 400 and 500.
so if we will found a species of the genus homo date about 270 it will not make any problem to push the homo genus back 270 my. because they are not the same species.
so we can claim for convergent evolution if we will find a 300 my old homo-like genus.
…except that it’s not possible with 270, as I showed you.
You know if you want a better example than Ginkgo, you should try the Nautilus, which really has been around since the Late Cambrian. But again (it seems the point must be reiterated), the nautilus species you find in Cambrian rocks are not the same as the nautilus species you find in the Cenozoic. The same is true of Ginkgo, etc., etc.
First off: Find me one, and then we’ll talk. You keep talking about ridiculous things that will never be found.
My head almost literally hurts trying to follow you here, dcscccc. You seem to have a knack for taking simple things and making them confusing. This is not complicated. Let me try again:
-
If you find a Ginkgo species 270 million years ago, it’s no big deal. Evolutionary theory, in fact, predicts that Ginkgos will be found that long ago. They are a very ancient, conservative plant lineage. If, tomorrow, while hiking in Outer Mongolia, you happen to stumble upon a ginkgo from 280 million years ago (instead of 270), it’s no big deal. That’s 10 million years out of 270. You’re not saying that ginkgos suddenly appeared before, say, multicellular life. Now THAT would be a problem.
-
If you find a Homo species 270 million years ago, it’s a big deal. That’s because, again, evolutionary theory predicts (funny how it does that prediction thing over and over again) that you shouldn’t find that. That’s because the human and chimp lineages split off about 6ish million years ago. 270 million years (multiple orders of magnitude older!) would put a human before the rise of most dinosaurs, let alone mammals, let alone primates, let alone great apes, let alone hominins. This would be akin to finding a Ginkgo species down where multicellular life hadn’t come about yet. If, however, you found a Homo species, say, 8 million years ago, it would be surprising! Much ink would be spilled over whether it was really Homo, or some other kind of great ape. But it would not be a huge problem for evolutionary theory.
Depends. What do you mean by “homo-like”? If you mean a species with reasonably advanced intelligence (say, the level of dolphins or elephants), well, I wouldn’t be too surprised by that. Pretty high levels of intelligence have been found in quite divergent species.
Again, convergent evolution works on traits. So if you’re talking about any one particular trait within Homo, like bipedalism or the ability to digest the baby-food of another species (i.e., cow’s milk, for some humans), then sure! You can claim convergent evolution for that. Absolutely.
2 Likes
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
2 Likes
Folks… there are TWO textbook cases about fossils IN ORDER:
- all placental mammals went extinct on Australia, while virtually all marsupial mammals went extinct everywhere else. This can only be explained by millions of years of evolution, not 5000 years and a flood.
- NO really large mammal (terrestrial or marine) has existed until AFTER large dinosaurs (terrestrial or marine) became extinct. This can only be explained by millions of years of evolution, not 5000 years and a flood.
here is one example:
“This species is considered to be one of the oldest living species on the planet at around 200 million years old. Fossils of this species from the Upper Triassic (Norian) period appear virtually unchanged compared to modern day members of the species.”-
so yes- species can survive more then 200 my without a problem according to evolution. and im not even talk about the family level.
The logical fallacy here is in your extension from “a particular species, Triops cancriformis” to “any given species I might imagine.”
Here’s what we find when we look at the taxonomy of Triops, from what I can find easily (and I’m not a biologist). This selective list and the one below start with the largest taxonomic groupings and narrow down to just above the genus level.
- Phylum: Arthopoda, first attested in the Ediacaran or Early Cambrian
- Subphylum: Crustacea, first attested in the Middle Cambrian
- Class: Branchiopoda, first attested in the Late Cambrian
- Order: Notostraca, first attested in the Carboniferous
Note the progression of time here? So if you find a Triops in Ediacaran rocks, that would be really problematic!
Let’s look at Homo.
- Phylum: Chordata (with some sort of spine), first attested in the Middle Cambrian
- Infraphylum: Gnathostomata (with jaws), first attested in the Silurian
- Superclass: Tetrapods (with four feet), first attested in the Middle Devonian
- Clade (unranked): Synapsida, first attested in the Carboniferous
- Class: Mammalia, first attested in the Late Triassic
- Clade (unranked): Eutheria (all mammals except monotremes), first attested in the Jurassic
- Clade (unranked): Placentalia, first attested in the Early Paleocene
- Order: Primates, first attested in the Late Paleocene
- Family: Hominidae, first attested in the Miocene
If you say, “this little shrimp dates to the Jurassic,” well, fine! Because the Jurassic comes after the appearance of all the groups it belongs to.
But if you say, “this human dates to the Jurassic,” well, that’s a problem! Because during the Jurassic is when we first see eutherian mammals, before we see any true placental mammals, before we see any primates, or any great apes. It would be waaaaay out of order. (And this is why, incidentally, you’ll never find such a fossil. If you have, we’re all waiting with baited breath to see it.)
The relative ease of finding a Jurassic shrimp and relative difficulty of finding a Jurassic human are both strong predictions of evolution, indicators of its success as a model of origins. You can’t just say, “Well, evolution is just fine with accommodating 200-million-year-old human bones. It’ll just move back the dates!” That’s not accurate.
Now you understand, right?
no. i just showed that if its possible with 1 its also possible with other species.
so you are saying that fossil out of order is a fossil that appear before its suppose ancestor. ok. but where is the limit that evoluton will still be ok with this? 10 my older? 20? 50?
Right! And you picked Homo. Which is an enormous, unsupportable logical jump. Exactly my point.
I think this is a reasonable question. The answer probably depends on the species. So instead of going around and around in the realm of silly hypotheticals, why don’t you go ahead and give us a real example of a fossil from undisturbed rocks that is ridiculously out of sequence with respect to current evolutionary models, and we’ll discuss it?
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
1 Like
and your answer is? lets talk about the homo “kind” (kind in the creationism terms. very close to the family level). lets say that we will find a 70 my homo kind. why there is any problem to push the homo “kind” in this case? we can also push back monkeys with the homo species. we can solve this by the claiming that there is more fossils that we will find in the future.
Hey DCS, when you’ve stopped dodging my questions, then you can ask me not to dodge yours.
Yeah, I personally choose not to talk about “kinds.” It’s unscientific and silly to me. But I can still answer your question (see below).
You won’t. You haven’t. By the way, since you’re not answering my question about that, I’m left to assume that means you haven’t found any of these “fossils out of order” (despite 196 comments). Which means you tacitly agree that evolutionary theory does a good job of modeling what’s been found to date. I’m glad we agree on that. (If you don’t agree, feel free to produce that counterexample we’ve all been waiting for.)
It would be helpful if a trained biologist would chime in here. But I’ll take a stab at it. This is a reasonable question.
IF you were to find such a fossil, then yes, this would be the only way out for evolutionary theory. One would have to posit that, at some future date, new early primates, new early placentals and new early eutherians (among others) will all be found that will support the revision of those all of those dates back by hundreds of millions of years. But make no mistake, this would be sort of an “everything you know is wrong” moment. 150 years of precedent, thousands of meticulously studied fossils, countless reams of paper of scholarly journals, all point to the rough trajectory I outlined earlier from eutherians down to hominids.
At this point we need to ask the question, “What does science do when it finds something that just doesn’t fit the standard model at all?” And I tried to have a nuanced conversation earlier with you about that on the Forum, about the history of science and Kuhnian models of paradigm shifts, anomalies and all that, and you didn’t want to have that conversation. If you want to go back to it now, do feel free to do a search for “Kuhn” and start a new topic about it based on that old, closed Forum thread. If I recall correctly, @bren also chimed in to try and help you understand what I was getting at, back in the day. If you’re ready to engage with all that material, I think it could be really helpful for your understanding of the way science works.
3 Likes
i will try to do this short.
great. this is what im saying. another option is to reverse the order- human first and then the rest.
and again- not problem for evolution. evolution theory will still be valid in this c ase (according to evolutionists).
so again we see- no fossil can falsified evolution. it may change some dates here and there. but not falsified it.
and also rememeber that we have other option like convergent evolution. there is no prediction under the evolution model that some familys cant evolve twice in the history.
it may be my final comment. i proved my case.
When you have answered all the things that you have repeatedly ignored above and in previous threads (foremost above them being your serious misunderstanding of how science actually works), you will have proven your case. For now, you have done nothing of the sort. At least not to me. Others may judge otherwise, as is their natural prerogative.
Nope, you didn’t prove this one, either. You just ignored my counterpoints.
Peace to you, then. Sincerely, I wish you well in your journey with Christ. I also hope that you won’t continue to misrepresent evolutionary views that you haven’t taken the time to listen to and understand. But anyway, all my best.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.