amwolfe. i speak about its first appearance. so yes- according to the evolution it need to appear first in the right period. but its not actually. because tetrapod appear before it!. evolution doesnt predict this situation.
“I don’t understand what cars have to do with anything, but feel free to elaborate if you care to”-
you said that hierarchy is evidence for evolution. but we find this hierarchy also in cars. but it doesnt prove any evolution.
Hi dcs,
Looks like we interpreted your word “appeared” differently! You meant “showed up for the first time” and I meant “was found.” Trouble is, of course, you never know when you find a fossil whether it’s the fossil’s first appearance in the fossil record or not. Only more fossil discoveries over time will tell that story.
Fwiw, I never said or implied that “hierarchy” was evidence for evolution. I used the term “progression.” And this sort of progression in the fossil record is just one small part of the evidence for evolution, which is massive and comes from a multitude of scientific subdisciplines.
amwolfe
but its not what you said here:
“which is right where we’d expect it for the transition to land vertebrates”-
so evolution can make prediction about fossil record or not?
what you mean by that actually? progression of complexity? order of appearance?
What if I were to say, writing and affirmed, that I had been around since a building was created? From day one I had been with that building, living in that building, and managed that building? No what if someone else said, “Well, what that means is the building was made, and then he came a million years later and he just kind of evolved from trash that was in the building and eventually he was living in that building.” That is how it sound when we deny what Jesus himself, our Creator, said about having put man, male and female, here on earth, since its creation, and having prophets since its foundation, putting man OVER animals, not making him from animals:
Jesus on Mankind’s genesis:
“That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” -Jesus, Luke 11:50-51 (emphasis mine)
Yes, I hold to Jesus’ view on Earth, that starlight speed is in God’s control, not man’s imagination, that Jesus doesn’t lie, and He himself affirms why and when we were made.
Hi dcs,
Your comments, which seem to me like gotcha games, are getting tiring for me. There are no conflicts in what I said.
As I’ve explained: evolutionary theory can make tentative predictions about an animal’s approximate first appearance in the fossil record. But you never know when you’ve found the first one. Future discoveries can find earlier ones. Trilobites, for instance, stuck around for 300 million years.
My argument could use a little clarification here though (practicing biologists care to chime in?), because the odds are pretty low that something will stick around in exactly the same form from 375 million to 10 million years ago. Trilobites, for instance, were a diverse group — though we laymen tend to group them together — and different varieties of trilobite were found during different geologic periods. Even the tuatara, a celebrated “living fossil” that’s the only remaining member of a very ancient, very diverse group, has changed a lot over the last 220 million years since its line broke with lizards and snakes. So, you know, you could decide after reviewing the evidence that you want to call tuataras a “missing link” between reptiles in the crocodile-dinosaur-bird-turtle lineage and reptiles in the snake-lizard lineage. But if you found a given individual fossil specimen from among the close prehistoric relatives of the modern tuatara, I would imagine current evolutionary models could give you a pretty good idea what rocks you’re likely to find that tuatara relative in.
It’s a matter of likelihood here, though. Finding something that doesn’t confirm current models and timelines doesn’t mean the entirety of evolutionary theory is wrong. It just means we didn’t understand that particular lineage very well and now we understand it better. The thing is, compared with YEC, at least evolutionary theory has a model, a story for how life unfolded with new innovations at specific times dated in MYA. It can tell you in fine-grained detail when certain traits emerged in the fossil record, and it’ll be pretty close to accurate. YEC… well, let’s not go there.
As to “progression,” I meant, yes, at least order of appearance. There’s significantly more to it than that, but I’m a nonspecialist running on a sleep deficit and facing a long to-do list so I don’t have time to research enough to elaborate further.
I rest my case by repeating my previous point that the fact of evolution does not depend on your strange car-based straw man logic. It is buttressed by the results of 150+ years of inquiry in diverse scientific subfields. If one of my lines of reasoning fails… great! I have a half dozen more independent, strong, unassailable reasons to believe in evolutionary creation.
I may not be up for another round of gotcha questions, but you’re welcome to try.
hi amwolfe.
you dont see here a contradiction? lets say that we will find a human fossil date about 70 my. is this fossil will disprove the evolution? why?
so a human fossil date about 70my will not di
i can show you that even all the rest arent hold water. if you want.
sprove the evolution?
Hi dcs,
There was no contradiction.
With this new example, though, you are actually going in a helpful direction. 
Finding old (that is, conservative) creatures fossilized in late rock strata is not really a problem, as I’ve said. Finding new creatures fossilized in earlier rock strata, on the other hand, is. Of course you have to rule out various possible alternative explanations for subsequent disturbances in the site. But if it’s indeed shown to be in its original strata, that may cause varying degrees of reformulation…
I don’t really want you to show me your arguments, but if you insist, I will reply to the best of my limited understanding and limited time. I am a perfectly contented evolutionary creationist but if you’re actually curious to learn about potential holes in your reasoning then it may be worth the investment of my time for a brother in the Lord. I do enjoy talking about this stuff.
Best,
amw
Well stated @AMWolfe !!!
DCS’s favorite criticism is that exceptions won’t change an Evolutionist’s mind. But that’s the point, isn’t it… they are EXCEPTIONS !!!
Either camp has to be defended or criticized based on the PATTERNS of evidence … not based on the rare exceptions.
The problem with DCS is that he dismisses entire PATTERNS of evidence by saying “populations are just too small to believe the pattern”.
Ha!
George
No. There are no nested hierarchies in the development of car morphology. New inventions/features (e.g., power steering, power brakes, fuel injectors) appear in whatever models the manufacturers choose, not according to lines of descent. That’s why a new feature is not necessarily unique to a single factory or manufacturer. Of course, the fact that cars don’t reproduce, and aren’t biological organisms, should be a giant tip-off that they they didn’t evolve. (Likewise, we don’t assume that everything that is green is carrying out photosynthesis. For starters, we expect something to be biologically alive to conduct photosynthesis.)
Those ministry leaders who are so often heard saying that “Common Design” and “Common Descent” are simply “Different interpretations of the same evidence” have never actually examined how common design and common descent differ so markedly and obviously.
“Shared design and shared descent are indistinguishable.” is often effective with general audiences but not with any scientists who actually study nested hierarchies, such as taxonomists, comparative anatomists and paleontologists. Of course, when genome mapping allowed scientists to confirm that the same nested hierarchies published by evolutionary biologists for generations were likewise found at the molecular level within the DNA itself, that was yet another enormous slam-dunk confirmation for the Theory of Evolution that couldn’t be ignored—yet some did and pretend it never happened. (Those who claim that there is no way to test the Theory of Evolution fail to realize that its predictions are confirmed daily in the peer-reviewed academic journals. Genome mapping and comparisons of the nested hierarchies are simply some of the latest confirmations.)
The Argument from Personal Incredulity may seem mind-numbing to the average academic. But it is surprisingly convincing to an awful lot of people. That’s why we hear it so often from the presidential candidates, such as in the unintentionally humorous sentences which begin with “I simply find it impossible to believe that…” and “I’m just an average person and don’t claim to be an expert but I just cannot accept that…:” I heard one such gentleman dismissing all climate science because “Do you realize how tiny is 400 parts per million? I refuse to believe that such a tiny fraction of 1% of a beneficial gas that is an absolutely essential plant food could be bringing doom upon the world in such a miniscule amount! I just don’t buy it! And you shouldn’t either. Somebody has to stand up for the little guy against those so-called experts! We may not all have PhDs but we have something more important called common sense. Look it up, experts!”
(I wonder what that politician would have said if a member of the press corps had pointed out that 277 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide gas was enough to kill a person instantly. At half of that concentration, it’s enough to kill most people within a half hour. Miniscule amounts do matter. Thus, that kind of mathematics-illiteracy is yet another reason why the Argument from Personal Incredulity is such a ubiquitous logic fallacy.)
Since this exchange, I’ve been mulling this over.
What bothered me initially was the thought that, if a human were actually found in undisturbed rocks from 70 MYA — which is, of course, impossible — I’m confident that people would not actually abandon evolution. I crinkled my brow and wondered, “Gosh, does that make evolution unfalsifiable?”
But it doesn’t. To understand why, you have to understand how science actually works.
If a given scientific model accommodates, say, 100 million various bits of information from across various disciples, and one bit of information doesn’t fit, that one bit doesn’t force people to abandon the model. What it ̯does do is get that 1 bit of information put on a “this doesn’t fit” list. That list gathers and gets vetted by generations of scientists, until someone comes along and says, “Aha! Here’s a new model that accommodates all 100,000,001 bits of information.” This is what I understand happened with relativity over and against Newtonian physics, for instance. For evolution, such a new model would have to elegantly explain why we have exactly the distribution we have for all the other countless fossils we’ve described to date… AND the one anachronistic human. It would not be enough to say, “evolution is a bunch of stupid ballyhoo.” It would have to say, “This is why it looks for all the world like evolution is true AND there’s also this weird Homo sapiens fossil in Late Cretaceous rocks.”
My mentor in my scientific field, a respected pioneer, used to tell me, “You can’t beat something with nothing.” He would go on, “So that was his story. It’s not enough to say it’s wrong. What’s your story?” The one who has the story that most elegantly and convincingly explains ALL the data wins the day.
The problem with YEC is that it doesn’t have any good explanation for why we see the extremely coherent, high-definition, beautifully elegant picture of creation that we do when we look through evolutionary lenses. In and of itself, finding a 70 million year old Homo sapiens won’t convince people of anything.
hi molinist’
" That’s why a new feature is not necessarily unique to a single factory or manufacturer. "-
but we find also share traits in species that are doesnt close at all. they call it “convergent evolution”. so there is no difference here.
"Of course, the fact that cars don’t reproduce, and aren’t biological organisms, should be a giant tip-off that they they didn’t evolve. "-
so if cars was self replicating you will claim that they evolved?
" Of course, when genome mapping allowed scientists to confirm that the same nested hierarchies published by evolutionary biologists for generations were likewise found at the molecular level within the DNA itself, "-
so the prediction is that if 2 organisms are closest from morphology prespevtive then they will be closest from genetic prepspective?
so you agree that even a 70 my human fossil will not disprove the evolution. great. so first- you disagree with dawkins for example. second- its prove that evolution cant be falsified.
so how many fossils we will need to find to falsified the evolution? 10? 20? 100? by the way- any scientific theory need only 1 counter evidence for the model. for example: if we go to the past when peoples belived in a flat earth, and someone gave us evidence that the earth isnt flat- it will be enough.
That’s not what I said. I said that people — actual scientists — would not abandon evolution. But your putative fossil would constitute valid counterevidence to evolutionary theory, to be sure… which means evolution is falsifiable.
As to how scientific knowledge advances, I know you didn’t ask for a book recommendation but I’d like to recommend Kuhn’s landmark The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. If you read it you’ll understand what I mean about counterexamples, and you’ll be able to speak with a little more understanding of the history of science and scientific paradigms (a word which this book actually launched into popular usage). And if I recall correctly it’s a really engaging, accessible read. Or if you must I suppose you could even read the Cliff’s Notes on Wikipedia: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia. (But I hope after reading the short version you’ll get a used copy of the original and read it.)
So what’s your story, dcs? What’s your model for why the world looks like evolution is true?
I think the only honest, consistent YEC position is that God made the world with apparent age, that is that He created trees that had rings in them that gave the appearance of age even though they had been formed in the blink of an eye, and made Adam and Eve with belly buttons even though they’d never had an umbilical cord. This raises theological questions about why God would do such a thing, but at least it does justice to the mountains and mountains of evidence that favors an evolutionary description. Is that the tack that you take? How else do you explain the apparent progression of life through various layers of rock, which elegantly accommodates millions if not hundreds of millions of pieces of data?
so a human fossil date about 70 my will not disprove the evolution. this is actually what you saying. its not a scientific theory then.
actually the evolution model doesnt have any scientific evidence at all. the main evolution claim is that one kind of animal can change into another kind (i mean more in the family level). science is base on experiments and testable claims. so actually the best explanation is that one kind cant change into another because all experiments so far show that one kind cant change into another.
about radiometric dating- if its true and the method is reliable, and we take a rock and date it in those methods: what is the biggest mystake that can be in terms of % from the real age of the rock?(lets say that we take a known age rock and date him with u238 for example).
thanks.
That’s not what I said. You’re still repeating the same false summary of what I said. After you read Wikipedia’s summary of Kuhn (there should be a circled “1” after the link when I check back), we can try again.
Science looks for the most parsimonious, elegant explanation for all the evidence available. The best, simplest explanation for all the evidence available so far is (macro)evolution. This includes harmonious evidence not only from fossils and radiometric dating but also genetics, biogeography (which creatures are found where), plate tectonics, biological morphology, and embryology (among other fields).
I’m sorry I can’t answer your specific question about radiometric dating as it’s outside my expertise and I don’t have time today to go scurrying to Wikipedia. It’s well-established science, though, so I’m sure one of our more specialized commenters here can help you understand why it’s not really in question. But again, the fact of evolution does not hinge only on radiometric dating.
here is what you said again:
" I said that people — actual scientists — would not abandon evolution"-
so a 70 my human fossil will not disprove the evolution e ven according to you.
you say that the evolution is a fa ct. so give me your best evidence that show that this is indeed a fact an not a belief.
DCS,
The BEST evidence for Evolution is the fact, established by physics and geology, that the Earth is 5 billion years old. Please don’t change the subject back to “speciation” - - frankly, you abuse the topic. I think NON-BIOLOGICAL evidence would be more fair to both sides of the topic…
ANSWER TO DCS: What’s the point of convincing you about speciatiaon if you’ll just say the earth is only 5000 years old?! You are the reason i no longer discuss speciation with Creationists.
Please go back and read what I said again. If you read it carefully, I believe you will understand, as I’ve explained it already multiple times.
One more try: A 70-million-year-old human fossil (which has never been found and will never be found) would be a valid counterexample to evolutionary theory, but even so, if such a fossil turned up, I do not believe most scientists would abandon evolution altogether until a better explanatory model was found that would accommodate all the data — that is to say, the mountains and mountains of data in favor of evolution amassed over the last 150+ years, as well as the one piece of probably spurious evidence that doesn’t fit. I remind you that such a fossil has never been found, and will never be found.
I’ll be honest with you, dcs: I don’t want to take my time giving you my “best evidence.” It takes me a good bit of time to write these responses, and I don’t want to waste my time if this isn’t a real good-faith dialogue. You’ve misrepresented me now twice. If you can show you understand what I said in the last paragraph I wrote, then I’ll move on to the next question. If not, I’m pretty much tapped out here.
Have a good day.
george. how the age of the earth have any conection to the biological evolution? what is the fact that make the evolution a fact?
thanks. so the evolution cant be falsified. lets face it. scientists will continue to believe in evolution in any case. now- we actually do have a better explanation. again- all experiments so far show us that a dog always stay as a dog. so the speciel creation is a better explanation because all experiments support this model and not evolution. more then that- we know that there is no step wise from one kind of animal to another because it need in most cases a new systems. and any complex new system will need at least 2-3 new parts for a minimal function. so evolution cant explain that.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.