1) In your first rebuttal, you made the below statement; “And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.”
Which whale(s) does this apply to and can you provide a diagram that shows the nasal passage moving up along the backside of the brain?
Answer 1)
I retract my statement about the whale blowhole. It is not behind the brain.
But Chris, I now wonder if you will retract your statement about the human coccyx. It is not vestigial.
After I corrected you on this, your response was to say:
“Apparently we don’t need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx).”
This does not make it apparent that we don’t need a coccyx. If it did, then:
“Apparently we don’t need a frontal lobe to the brain, given the existence of a Frontal Lobotomy (the surgical removal of the Frontal Lobe).”
Everyone knows the usefulness of the frontal lobe. And you ought to know the usefulness of the coccyx.
It is the anchor for the muscles of rectum control, childbirth, abdominal organ support, and the lower back. We also need it to sit down.
If I was wrong about whale anatomy, you are wrong about human anatomy. Be honest. We await your retraction.
2) If hominids are not in fact our ancestors, perhaps you can clear some confusion by educating readers on which are ape and which are human (for reference, Chimpanzees have a brain size of roughly 410 cc, Gorillas 500 cc, and all of the hominids below were bipedal); Australopithecus Afarensis (375-550 cc), Australopithecus Africanus (420-500 cc), Homo Habilis (500-650 cc), Homo Rudolfensis (600-800 cc), Homo Ergaster/Erectus (750-1250 cc), Homo Antecessor (1000 cc), Homo Sapien (1200 cc), Homo Sapien Sapien (1350 cc) * Creation scientists are unable to agree amongst each other on which of these are apes and which are human, so your opinion may help create a concensus.
Answer 2)
Chris, why would you wish to use consensus to determine truth, when you know it does not do that. Indeed, evolutionists themselves cannot agree on the placement of these fossils in their story (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). You know that. So, why ask me? And the old brain-body weight-ratio theory on intelligence was dropped by both evolutionists and creationists decades ago. You know that, too. Why bring up rejected theories in your arguments? If you know better, then be honest about it. If you do not, then leave these matters to others. And how can A. afarensis be bipedal with a thumb on its foot? (National Geographic, 11/06) New theories by evolutionist researchers, on jaw measurements of afarensis (Science News, 4/14/07, p230) have just classified it as a gorilla – not my call, but theirs. And if A. africanus really is a million years after afarensis, then why is it more ape-like instead of more human-like? (National Geographic, 2/97) The stories don’t coordinate. And since evolution researchers have disqualified all the missing links you listed (except antecessor), then why do you mention them at all? And if by Homo sapiens you mean H. sapiens neanderthalensis, then remember … Neanderthals were people, too – evolutionists and creationists now agree on that.
3) Urban legends and proven hoaxes (like the Paluxy Tracks) aside, why do we not find any remnants of human civilization (agriculture, buildings, boats, chariots, armor, weapons, art work, etc) in anything except the upper layers? Shouldn’t the deposits from the flood have buried this all in place, and certainly lower than animals like the first reptiles (Carboniferous), Theropod Dinosaurs (Triassic), Mammoths (Pleistocene), Archaeopteryx (Jurassic)) that were fighting to make it to higher ground?
Answer 3)
Chris, who says Carboniferous-layer reptiles were “the first?” The only missing link amphibian-reptile fossil evolutionists point to is the Seymouria which is found only in Permian rocks clearly above other layers that contain true reptile fossils (Understanding Evolution [2000], p140).
I’ve already explained the creationist position on the fossil sequence in the rock layers: original pre-Flood habitats, the fact that dead birds and mammals float, and hydrodynamic sorting. What’s left? Shall I provide absolute proof that dinosaurs and humans lived together? Okay.
Dino fossils cannot be more ancient than 40,000 years, and indeed are more likely to be less than 4000. I’ll leave off all fossil interpretations, theories and opinions, and lean on the known laws of chemical kinetics … as verified by repeatable lab experiments for the rate laws, rate equations, and equilibrium constants of biochemical reactions.
In short, intact proteins have been found in dinosaur bones dated by evolutionary thinking at 80 million years old, when proteins are known to disintegrate in time frames 2000-fold shorter than that. Want proof? Sure.
Veins, red blood cells, bone cells, and muscle tissue … not fossilized but the real stuff, the original tissues … have all been found in dinosaur bones dated as old as 100 million years by evolutionary thinking (Science News, 3/26/05, p195; Science, 3/23/05; The Knoxville-News Sentinel, 7/28/2000, pA15; Earth, 6/97, p55-7). Fragile complex pigment biomolecules have even been found in supposedly 350 million year old fossils (see Ohio State Research News, 10/23/06 http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foscolor.htm ). There is no process known to prevent the disintegration of these molecules longer than 10-40 thousand years … which is well within the limits of the Creationary time-frames for the Flood (4300 yrs ago) and the origin of life on Earth (6000 yrs ago).
I don’t use theories or opinions that rely on the accepted reputations of so-called experts in their fields, Chris. I rely on data, evidence, and facts that can be documented. Evolutionary thinking is presuppositional thinking. Evolutionary thinking is inertial thinking, resistant in every way, to any data or observations that indicate scientific truth departing from evolutionary fantasy. This has been made clear from the manner and demeanor of this on-line debate from start to finish.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's Answers
1) EIAF claimed geology proved faunal succession. I pointed out the Flood of Noah would've arranged fossils most in accordance with only the vertebrate evolution from water to land facet of the evolution story. What evidence is there then, for the evolution of invertebrates from water to land; particularly the insects?
While you indeed made the above claim, you never explained the gaps in appearance between reptiles and mammals that were fulfilling similar niches (among other contradicting facts).
Depending on which fossilized remains are considered true insects, the first known insects appear either in the Silurian (Aptergyota—resemble silverfish) or in the Devonian (fragmentary fossil evidence). They are plentiful in the Carboniferous period, however by this time they are fulfilling multiple niches on land.
A better example of invertebrates transitioning to land can be seen in the Arachnids, more specifically scorpions. Scorpions with book gills (like modern crabs) start to appear in the Silurian, but variations with book lungs (like spiders) in the upper Devonian/Lower Carboniferous eras
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
Simply put, we don't find today's plants in the lowest layers. Plants themselves display faunal succession (see the extremely oversimplified list below). The first vascular plants show up in the Silurian period, trees show up in the Carboniferous, while Cactuses don't show up until the Cretaceous. It's difficult to argue that Cactuses start showing up in higher layers than trees because they were able to scramble to higher ground during the flood.
Quaternary -
Tertiary – First Redwood Trees
Cretaceous –First Cactuses and Palm Trees
Jurassic – Angiopsermophyta (first flowering plants and trees)
Triassic -
Permian -
Carboniferous – First Conifers
Devonian – Pteridophyta (ferns)
Silurian – First Vascular Plants (land)
Ordovician -
Cambrian -
Pre-Cambrian –First marine plants (algae)
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
The need to explain "how" evolution is not a religion is about as necessary as the need to explain how history itself is not a religion. Your entire assumption that such an explanation is necessary rests on your own subjective interpretation;
"and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life"
Of course, it is indeed possible for one to build a religion off of evolutionary theory, but this is not a product of the theory itself but rather someone's choice to modify evolution into a religious framework.
While you indeed made the above claim, you never explained the gaps in appearance between reptiles and mammals that were fulfilling similar niches (among other contradicting facts).
Depending on which fossilized remains are considered true insects, the first known insects appear either in the Silurian (Aptergyota—resemble silverfish) or in the Devonian (fragmentary fossil evidence). They are plentiful in the Carboniferous period, however by this time they are fulfilling multiple niches on land.
A better example of invertebrates transitioning to land can be seen in the Arachnids, more specifically scorpions. Scorpions with book gills (like modern crabs) start to appear in the Silurian, but variations with book lungs (like spiders) in the upper Devonian/Lower Carboniferous eras
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
Simply put, we don't find today's plants in the lowest layers. Plants themselves display faunal succession (see the extremely oversimplified list below). The first vascular plants show up in the Silurian period, trees show up in the Carboniferous, while Cactuses don't show up until the Cretaceous. It's difficult to argue that Cactuses start showing up in higher layers than trees because they were able to scramble to higher ground during the flood.
Quaternary -
Tertiary – First Redwood Trees
Cretaceous –First Cactuses and Palm Trees
Jurassic – Angiopsermophyta (first flowering plants and trees)
Triassic -
Permian -
Carboniferous – First Conifers
Devonian – Pteridophyta (ferns)
Silurian – First Vascular Plants (land)
Ordovician -
Cambrian -
Pre-Cambrian –First marine plants (algae)
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
The need to explain "how" evolution is not a religion is about as necessary as the need to explain how history itself is not a religion. Your entire assumption that such an explanation is necessary rests on your own subjective interpretation;
"and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life"
Of course, it is indeed possible for one to build a religion off of evolutionary theory, but this is not a product of the theory itself but rather someone's choice to modify evolution into a religious framework.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Questions to and from the opposing side
Evolution is a fact asked:
1-In your first rebuttal, you made the below statement;
"And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it."
Which whale(s) does this apply to and can you provide a diagram that shows the nasal passage moving up along the backside of the brain?
2- If hominids are not in fact our ancestors, perhaps you can clear some confusion by educating readers on which are ape and which are human (for reference, Chimpanzees have a brain size of roughly 410 cc, Gorillas 500 cc, and all of the hominids below were bipedal);
Australopithecus Afarensis (375-550 cc), Australopithecus Africanus (420-500 cc), Homo Habilis (500-650 cc), Homo Rudolfensis (600-800 cc), Homo Ergaster/Erectus (750 – 1250 cc), Homo Antecessor (1000 cc), Homo Sapien (1200 cc), Homo Sapien Sapien (1350 cc).
* Creation scientists are unable to agree amongst each other on which of these are apes and which are human, so your opinion may help create a consensus.
3-Urban legends and proven hoaxes (like the Paluxy Tracks) aside, why do we not find any remnants of human civilization (agriculture, buildings, boats, chariots, armor, weapons, art work, etc) in anything except the upper layers? Shouldn't the deposits from the flood have buried this all in place, and certainly lower than animals like the first reptiles (Carboniferous), Theropod Dinosaurs (Triassic) , Mammoths (Pleistocene), Archaeopteryx (Jurassic) ) that were fighting to make it to higher ground?
Dr. Jackson asked:
Three questions for EIAF:
1) EIAF claimed geology proved faunal succession. I pointed out the Flood of Noah would’ve arranged fossils most in accordance with only the vertebrate evolution from water to land facet of the evolution story. What evidence is there then, for the evolution of invertebrates from water to land; particularly the insects?
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
1-In your first rebuttal, you made the below statement;
"And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it."
Which whale(s) does this apply to and can you provide a diagram that shows the nasal passage moving up along the backside of the brain?
2- If hominids are not in fact our ancestors, perhaps you can clear some confusion by educating readers on which are ape and which are human (for reference, Chimpanzees have a brain size of roughly 410 cc, Gorillas 500 cc, and all of the hominids below were bipedal);
Australopithecus Afarensis (375-550 cc), Australopithecus Africanus (420-500 cc), Homo Habilis (500-650 cc), Homo Rudolfensis (600-800 cc), Homo Ergaster/Erectus (750 – 1250 cc), Homo Antecessor (1000 cc), Homo Sapien (1200 cc), Homo Sapien Sapien (1350 cc).
* Creation scientists are unable to agree amongst each other on which of these are apes and which are human, so your opinion may help create a consensus.
3-Urban legends and proven hoaxes (like the Paluxy Tracks) aside, why do we not find any remnants of human civilization (agriculture, buildings, boats, chariots, armor, weapons, art work, etc) in anything except the upper layers? Shouldn't the deposits from the flood have buried this all in place, and certainly lower than animals like the first reptiles (Carboniferous), Theropod Dinosaurs (Triassic) , Mammoths (Pleistocene), Archaeopteryx (Jurassic) ) that were fighting to make it to higher ground?
Dr. Jackson asked:
Three questions for EIAF:
1) EIAF claimed geology proved faunal succession. I pointed out the Flood of Noah would’ve arranged fossils most in accordance with only the vertebrate evolution from water to land facet of the evolution story. What evidence is there then, for the evolution of invertebrates from water to land; particularly the insects?
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Dr. Jackson's Closing Statement
The debate question submitted by EIAF (acronym for "Evolution is a Fact") was
"Does geology prove faunal succession?" Smokescreens and sidetracks aside, the burden of proof lied on the evolution side, as stated. Who won?
Does geology indeed prove faunal succession?
Yes -- in the eye of the evolutionist beholder. But if you take an objective look at the data, the evidence, the facts, the geology -- No. The affirmative stand and the negative stand each have insufficient data for a final case of proof, interpretations aside. No water-tight case of logic can be made for either side, as was seen.
However, the preponderance of logic applied to the evidence, I personally maintain is in favor of the position that geology does indeed in no way prove faunal succession. But that is merely my position. What does this mean?
This means that the original posit by EIAF is false. My position is that geology disproves faunal succession. EIAF did not need to negate my position in order to win in this exchange. However ... he did need to affirm his own position ... a task at which he failed.
Geology does not finally prove faunal succession. Go back over the exchanges to see this.
EIAF became instantly silent on the issue of human evolution after I presented evidence that falsified each of his out-of-date and so-called "proofs." EIAF failed to explain the out-of-sync nature of each and every fossil sequence he described to the audience, which he held up as his "proofs."
EIAF preferred to use big-sounding words, pseudo-professional language, long-winded tirades, personal character attacks and rhetoric in general ... as opposed to logical and coherent case establishment. It was always difficult to blow away the fluff and somehow to find the meat of each of his arguments, in order to discuss them meaningfully. This exposes the weakness of his position in the end. My attacks were only on the statements that EIAF made -- not on his personal intelligence or integrity. Stick to the topic. Stick to the matters at hand. Any efforts at distraction from these betray the weakness of an argument. Each EIAF argument was such.
Readers may think that defending the positive assertion may have given EIAF an unfair disadvantage, since it has often been said that science cannot logically falsify anything. This is a myth. This I shall prove.
I challenge EIAF to another debate then, this time with my own positive assertion that "DNA Information proves Intelligent Design." Same rules. Same schedule. Same advantages and disadvantages, only with the tables turned. If I had the advantage in the last go-round, EIAF should logically then have the advantage in the next proposal. I stand on the positive assertion of the above statement. As with his embarrassment on human evolution, if EIAF is silent regarding this challenge, I pronounce this as concession of his defeat. If he accepts the challenge however, every reader will see ... that belief in evolution is belief in a sci-fi fantasy at best or a truth-suppressing conspiracy at worst.
The three questions and discussion following from the original debate strand, I propose to continue concurrent with the new and second debate strand. EIAF is afraid of the truth. He's afraid of change. I'm not here to tell you how this is all going to end. I'm here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to show these people something he does not want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without boundaries, without rules, a world without him. Where we go from here, is a choice I leave with you.
- Dr J
"Does geology prove faunal succession?" Smokescreens and sidetracks aside, the burden of proof lied on the evolution side, as stated. Who won?
Does geology indeed prove faunal succession?
Yes -- in the eye of the evolutionist beholder. But if you take an objective look at the data, the evidence, the facts, the geology -- No. The affirmative stand and the negative stand each have insufficient data for a final case of proof, interpretations aside. No water-tight case of logic can be made for either side, as was seen.
However, the preponderance of logic applied to the evidence, I personally maintain is in favor of the position that geology does indeed in no way prove faunal succession. But that is merely my position. What does this mean?
This means that the original posit by EIAF is false. My position is that geology disproves faunal succession. EIAF did not need to negate my position in order to win in this exchange. However ... he did need to affirm his own position ... a task at which he failed.
Geology does not finally prove faunal succession. Go back over the exchanges to see this.
EIAF became instantly silent on the issue of human evolution after I presented evidence that falsified each of his out-of-date and so-called "proofs." EIAF failed to explain the out-of-sync nature of each and every fossil sequence he described to the audience, which he held up as his "proofs."
EIAF preferred to use big-sounding words, pseudo-professional language, long-winded tirades, personal character attacks and rhetoric in general ... as opposed to logical and coherent case establishment. It was always difficult to blow away the fluff and somehow to find the meat of each of his arguments, in order to discuss them meaningfully. This exposes the weakness of his position in the end. My attacks were only on the statements that EIAF made -- not on his personal intelligence or integrity. Stick to the topic. Stick to the matters at hand. Any efforts at distraction from these betray the weakness of an argument. Each EIAF argument was such.
Readers may think that defending the positive assertion may have given EIAF an unfair disadvantage, since it has often been said that science cannot logically falsify anything. This is a myth. This I shall prove.
I challenge EIAF to another debate then, this time with my own positive assertion that "DNA Information proves Intelligent Design." Same rules. Same schedule. Same advantages and disadvantages, only with the tables turned. If I had the advantage in the last go-round, EIAF should logically then have the advantage in the next proposal. I stand on the positive assertion of the above statement. As with his embarrassment on human evolution, if EIAF is silent regarding this challenge, I pronounce this as concession of his defeat. If he accepts the challenge however, every reader will see ... that belief in evolution is belief in a sci-fi fantasy at best or a truth-suppressing conspiracy at worst.
The three questions and discussion following from the original debate strand, I propose to continue concurrent with the new and second debate strand. EIAF is afraid of the truth. He's afraid of change. I'm not here to tell you how this is all going to end. I'm here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to show these people something he does not want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without boundaries, without rules, a world without him. Where we go from here, is a choice I leave with you.
- Dr J
Evolution is a Fact's Closing Statement
Dr Jackson, this debate has drawn to a close and readers who take the time to read the debate in its entirety will note that you have not even hit the surface in responding to my last rebuttal, and have left several facts unaccounted for, each of which individually point to faunal succession while disproving your global flood;
The disappearance of fauna over 10kg between the Cretaceous and Palogene (with gradual succession of larger fauna above this), the large gap in appearance between creatures filling similar niches (namely fish vs whales, aquatic reptiles vs aquatic mammals, large dinosaurs vs large mammals, etc), how Ostracoderms (freshwater variations included) appear in the lower layers (you insist that bottom dwelling sea life were the first to go) and how Teloest fish don't show up until the Triassic (despite existing on sea bottoms today), Fauna in the upper layers that better represent modern fauna, animal dens and burrows throughout the layers (animals can't create dens and burrows while they're being drowned), and why rapid and intact preservation (which happens during a flood) is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Nor have you explained why we find no Dinosaur fossils with spear points, or animals that fall outside of the usual same basic body plan, or remnants of human civilization until the very top layers. You never even bothered to account for the gradual succession in brain size (from 420 CC – 1350 CC) and other gradual "ape to human" characteristics between the hominids, nor account for the fact that we find these fossils in the same parts of the world where we find the great apes. I forgot to include the link to the Newsweek, 3/19/07 article you insist help disqualify them as our ancestors. I hope readers take the time to read this in full.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/4/
Readers will also notice your continued dependence on dishonest quote mines (both using articles as well as my own statements). In one quote I am alluding to the entire geological record throughout the world and how we shouldn't expect sediment and erosion to occur everywhere and at the same time, and in another I am talking about one portion of the world. In one minute I am talking about the uniformity of the overall sequence of fauna (reptiles->archaeopteryx->modern birds) then next I am delving into specific species and how its impossible to know which species evolved into the next (but rather, we know they are transitional because of their features). You quote the convenient elements of these statements and proceed to assert that they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I have never mentioned a global flood on Mars and for some reason you insist that I believe in one.
You continually attack a National Geographic article (again, a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) as a detriment to evolutionary theory and give no references in regards to which transitional forms you refer to, where you come up with these dates (120 Mya, 150 mya, etc), nor showcase any peer-reviewed works that claim that these specific fossils are specifically ancestral to Archaeopteryx. Given that you only used 753 of your allotted 2,000 word limit, how difficult would it be to delve into specifics? This method of debate is juvenile at best and you are once again repeating the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument. Any Paleontology source will show you that Theropods first appear in the Triassic, whereas Archaeopteryx doesn't appear until the Jurassic (meaning they are not "out of order").
To put your quote mines into perspective, what are the chances that after reading the statement below, you wouldn't accuse me of taking the Bible out of context and coming to a faulty conclusion?
"The Bible is a horrendous book; its remedy for disobedient children is that "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:18) and sets the stage for 2 millennia of bigotry towards females with chauvinistic rules, including but not limited to rules that tell us that women who give birth to male children "shall be unclean seven days" whereas after birth to a female child, she "shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity" (Leviticus 12)."
You have made up your own Geology by making Turbidity currents the cause for fossil destruction in the Cambrian, despite the fact that they can be checked for and yet none are found (the sort of ad hoc explanation I predicted in my first rebuttal). Furthermore, they can only account for the destruction of life among slopes and other formations where mudslides can drift from. A mudslide wouldn't account for burial along flat abyssal plains for the same reason we don't have avalanches in Kansas.
Any field Geologist will tell you that water-logged sunken tree trunks can indeed cross-cut layers of mud (gravity being a primary factor), and result in what creationists would define as polystrate, inasmuch as a tree surrounded by rapid deposit. I have never denied that floods cause rapid deposition. Its common knowledge that floods happen and always have, though it never ceases to amaze me how creationists automatically imply that any trace of a flood having occurred automatically means 'their' flood.
This has been another example of Creationist mischaracterization of Geology, Biology, Paleontology, and Anthropology in areas Creationists find inconvenient. Your methods of debate have been dishonest at best, though I suppose that's what one must do when trying to defend an indefensible position. But these methods won't turn fence sitters and certainly won't change anyone's mind. I would postulate that even a few of the "convinced creationists" that read the entire debate will begin to doubt you (and it certainly doesn't help that you thought whale blow holes were located behind their brains). Perhaps if Creationism ever comes up with an actual science as opposed to continually mischaracterizing what "evolutionists say," it can be taken a bit more seriously. Nothing about Creation Science holds up to scientific scrutiny.
The disappearance of fauna over 10kg between the Cretaceous and Palogene (with gradual succession of larger fauna above this), the large gap in appearance between creatures filling similar niches (namely fish vs whales, aquatic reptiles vs aquatic mammals, large dinosaurs vs large mammals, etc), how Ostracoderms (freshwater variations included) appear in the lower layers (you insist that bottom dwelling sea life were the first to go) and how Teloest fish don't show up until the Triassic (despite existing on sea bottoms today), Fauna in the upper layers that better represent modern fauna, animal dens and burrows throughout the layers (animals can't create dens and burrows while they're being drowned), and why rapid and intact preservation (which happens during a flood) is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Nor have you explained why we find no Dinosaur fossils with spear points, or animals that fall outside of the usual same basic body plan, or remnants of human civilization until the very top layers. You never even bothered to account for the gradual succession in brain size (from 420 CC – 1350 CC) and other gradual "ape to human" characteristics between the hominids, nor account for the fact that we find these fossils in the same parts of the world where we find the great apes. I forgot to include the link to the Newsweek, 3/19/07 article you insist help disqualify them as our ancestors. I hope readers take the time to read this in full.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/4/
Readers will also notice your continued dependence on dishonest quote mines (both using articles as well as my own statements). In one quote I am alluding to the entire geological record throughout the world and how we shouldn't expect sediment and erosion to occur everywhere and at the same time, and in another I am talking about one portion of the world. In one minute I am talking about the uniformity of the overall sequence of fauna (reptiles->archaeopteryx->modern birds) then next I am delving into specific species and how its impossible to know which species evolved into the next (but rather, we know they are transitional because of their features). You quote the convenient elements of these statements and proceed to assert that they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I have never mentioned a global flood on Mars and for some reason you insist that I believe in one.
You continually attack a National Geographic article (again, a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) as a detriment to evolutionary theory and give no references in regards to which transitional forms you refer to, where you come up with these dates (120 Mya, 150 mya, etc), nor showcase any peer-reviewed works that claim that these specific fossils are specifically ancestral to Archaeopteryx. Given that you only used 753 of your allotted 2,000 word limit, how difficult would it be to delve into specifics? This method of debate is juvenile at best and you are once again repeating the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument. Any Paleontology source will show you that Theropods first appear in the Triassic, whereas Archaeopteryx doesn't appear until the Jurassic (meaning they are not "out of order").
To put your quote mines into perspective, what are the chances that after reading the statement below, you wouldn't accuse me of taking the Bible out of context and coming to a faulty conclusion?
"The Bible is a horrendous book; its remedy for disobedient children is that "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:18) and sets the stage for 2 millennia of bigotry towards females with chauvinistic rules, including but not limited to rules that tell us that women who give birth to male children "shall be unclean seven days" whereas after birth to a female child, she "shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity" (Leviticus 12)."
You have made up your own Geology by making Turbidity currents the cause for fossil destruction in the Cambrian, despite the fact that they can be checked for and yet none are found (the sort of ad hoc explanation I predicted in my first rebuttal). Furthermore, they can only account for the destruction of life among slopes and other formations where mudslides can drift from. A mudslide wouldn't account for burial along flat abyssal plains for the same reason we don't have avalanches in Kansas.
Any field Geologist will tell you that water-logged sunken tree trunks can indeed cross-cut layers of mud (gravity being a primary factor), and result in what creationists would define as polystrate, inasmuch as a tree surrounded by rapid deposit. I have never denied that floods cause rapid deposition. Its common knowledge that floods happen and always have, though it never ceases to amaze me how creationists automatically imply that any trace of a flood having occurred automatically means 'their' flood.
This has been another example of Creationist mischaracterization of Geology, Biology, Paleontology, and Anthropology in areas Creationists find inconvenient. Your methods of debate have been dishonest at best, though I suppose that's what one must do when trying to defend an indefensible position. But these methods won't turn fence sitters and certainly won't change anyone's mind. I would postulate that even a few of the "convinced creationists" that read the entire debate will begin to doubt you (and it certainly doesn't help that you thought whale blow holes were located behind their brains). Perhaps if Creationism ever comes up with an actual science as opposed to continually mischaracterizing what "evolutionists say," it can be taken a bit more seriously. Nothing about Creation Science holds up to scientific scrutiny.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Dr. Jackson's 2ND Rebuttal
The foundation of EIAF’s thinking is that only EIAF’s thinking is valid. This inertia puts not only all dissenting thought to quick dismissal, but also all dissenting data. Inability to see the facts can be demonstrated. We bring this thinking to light here, and also its particular misplaced claims.
He claims being “misquoted” with:
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless ‘tail’ vestige."
But he believes it. He says:
“Apparently we don’t need a coccyx.”
Evolution-thinking requires a crippling limit on the use of logic. It must say “we don’t need” a bone that anchors the muscles of childbirth, rectum control, lower back and rear abdomen. It must say “we don’t need” to sit down.
EIAF must deny medical fact and common knowledge, to keep EIAF thinking purely evolution based. There is no other analysis for his above statements.
EIAF tries to explain polystrate fossils with:
“There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck.”
What pushes trees vertically into the muck under a swamp, he cannot describe, since swamps do not explain polystrates.
He accepts a global flood on Mars. He denies a global Flood on Earth. His next descriptions of vertical deposition cannot fit a swamp – they can only fit a flood.
“Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find ‘polystrate trees’ from time to time.”
He offers no rationale other than the above, for vertical deposition.
“there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through.”
He does not see that a tree buried by “rapid sedimentation” is not younger than the sediments. He cannot see that he makes no case for his claim of how swamp polystrates form, but instead makes only the case for how Flood polystrates form. Swamps do not provide “rapid sedimentation.” Floods do. This style of thinking characterizes the EIAF perception in each setting of the debate.
EIAF complains:
“you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulotcetus’ length as a reference point for refuting whale evolution.”
This sentence (like many he writes) may sound meaningful. But what point does he make? Read before and after it, in context. When statements make a run of meaningful-sounding ideas, but never bring them to any point … that is rhetoric. Count the EIAF statements that drop the run, short of arriving at any logical point
EIAF says:
“there is no reason to believe that sedimentation nor erosion, should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.”
He then blind-sides himself by saying:
“Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states.”
“Thousands of miles” of “evenly layered beds” indeed is a reason to believe sedimentation happened uniformly – isn’t it? This is particularly true, if the turbidity currents are on the scale of the Earth Flood. There is no other explanation. But EIAF logic (“Evolution is a Fact” logic) is self-limiting to the exclusion of an Earth Flood.
EIAF says:
“the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna.”
If it is seamless, why does National Geographic (7/98, page 91) admit that the bird evolution sequence EIAF defends “is not a chronological progression”? The order of the “seamless” steps goes against their own dates for the fossils. A “120 million year-old” fossil comes first in the “seamless” order, then an 80Mya, then an 90Mya, then 120, then 120, then 150, and then 115. The sequence has now been put into all the textbooks, without any mention of the evo-dates for the fossils. Evo-thinking willingly assimilates all these contradictions … seamlessly.
Is this not a “theoretical finding that would indeed falsify faunal succession”? No logic can say it is otherwise.
EIAF asserts:
“Paleontologist have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to.”
He says there is “no way of knowing” any evo-sequence.
If he is right, then logic dictates that the statement “geology shows faunal succession” must always remain … an opinion only. That is inescapable to the honest mind. Our next round of question-answer and open discussion, will only further demonstrate the broken and non-seamless nature of this thinking.
He claims being “misquoted” with:
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless ‘tail’ vestige."
But he believes it. He says:
“Apparently we don’t need a coccyx.”
Evolution-thinking requires a crippling limit on the use of logic. It must say “we don’t need” a bone that anchors the muscles of childbirth, rectum control, lower back and rear abdomen. It must say “we don’t need” to sit down.
EIAF must deny medical fact and common knowledge, to keep EIAF thinking purely evolution based. There is no other analysis for his above statements.
EIAF tries to explain polystrate fossils with:
“There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck.”
What pushes trees vertically into the muck under a swamp, he cannot describe, since swamps do not explain polystrates.
He accepts a global flood on Mars. He denies a global Flood on Earth. His next descriptions of vertical deposition cannot fit a swamp – they can only fit a flood.
“Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find ‘polystrate trees’ from time to time.”
He offers no rationale other than the above, for vertical deposition.
“there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through.”
He does not see that a tree buried by “rapid sedimentation” is not younger than the sediments. He cannot see that he makes no case for his claim of how swamp polystrates form, but instead makes only the case for how Flood polystrates form. Swamps do not provide “rapid sedimentation.” Floods do. This style of thinking characterizes the EIAF perception in each setting of the debate.
EIAF complains:
“you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulotcetus’ length as a reference point for refuting whale evolution.”
This sentence (like many he writes) may sound meaningful. But what point does he make? Read before and after it, in context. When statements make a run of meaningful-sounding ideas, but never bring them to any point … that is rhetoric. Count the EIAF statements that drop the run, short of arriving at any logical point
EIAF says:
“there is no reason to believe that sedimentation nor erosion, should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.”
He then blind-sides himself by saying:
“Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states.”
“Thousands of miles” of “evenly layered beds” indeed is a reason to believe sedimentation happened uniformly – isn’t it? This is particularly true, if the turbidity currents are on the scale of the Earth Flood. There is no other explanation. But EIAF logic (“Evolution is a Fact” logic) is self-limiting to the exclusion of an Earth Flood.
EIAF says:
“the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna.”
If it is seamless, why does National Geographic (7/98, page 91) admit that the bird evolution sequence EIAF defends “is not a chronological progression”? The order of the “seamless” steps goes against their own dates for the fossils. A “120 million year-old” fossil comes first in the “seamless” order, then an 80Mya, then an 90Mya, then 120, then 120, then 150, and then 115. The sequence has now been put into all the textbooks, without any mention of the evo-dates for the fossils. Evo-thinking willingly assimilates all these contradictions … seamlessly.
Is this not a “theoretical finding that would indeed falsify faunal succession”? No logic can say it is otherwise.
EIAF asserts:
“Paleontologist have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to.”
He says there is “no way of knowing” any evo-sequence.
If he is right, then logic dictates that the statement “geology shows faunal succession” must always remain … an opinion only. That is inescapable to the honest mind. Our next round of question-answer and open discussion, will only further demonstrate the broken and non-seamless nature of this thinking.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's 2ND Rebuttal
Quote mines and straw man arguments won't make transitional fossils disappear. None of the articles you cite disqualify these fossils as you claim and in fact, they support them—which is why I have provided links to them. I sincerely hope that readers will take the time to read the articles in their entirety. And while I'm a big fan of both National Geographic and Newsweek, I am curious as to why you would use popular magazines as opposed to peer-reviewed works as "proof." You supplement these quote mines and false inferences with the usual "transitional species X must have evolved specifically from transitional species Y in order for the transition to be true" fallacy. But this is not how Evolution works.
These transitional fossils all appear in the fossil record above and below the fossils they unite. What make them transitional are their transitional features between the two types of animals (ie. reptiles and birds). Evolution works like a tree, not a ladder, and different species of the same order will evolve differently if at all depending on ecological factors. Paleontologists have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to. Fossilization is rare so while we can certainly research and understand the fauna that existed at a certain point in time, we can't expect to recover every single species.
Since you agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird, let's talk about a handful (word limit) of its reptilian features, not found in modern birds; a reptilian mouth (teeth, and no bill or a beak), trunk region and vertebrae region are free (fused in modern birds), and its neck attaches to the skull from the rear (not the middle). Like other birds with reptilian features (such as Confucius-ornis), Archaeopteryx is found in the layers below fully modern birds but well above the first therapod dinosaurs. If a 1998 article mistakenly suggested that a certain therapod was ancestral to Archaeopteryx, it does not make either of their transitional features go away, nor does it change the fact that we find in them in the expected intermediate layers. The two transitions share a common ancestor, and Archaeopteryx simply had more modern avian features.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/98/dinosaurs/interview.html
Biologists don't create new orders like "dino-birds" for transitional forms. It's either classified as a dinosaur or a bird, and birds are generally considered "avian dinosaurs." Hence, "it's just a bird" is not a rebuttal, and nor does your Alan Feduccia (The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill) quote mine. Feduccia believes that birds (which you agree includes Archaeopteryx) evolved from non-therapod reptiles. The conclusion is still the same; Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil for the reasons I gave above. You also leave out the fact that other bird experts disagree with Feduccia, and also support the therapod-bird connection.
Whale Evolution
Tapirs in fact lead a semi-aquatic lifestyle (so its not a disqualifier). Whale expert Phillip Gingerich (who you yourself quote) says;
"Pakicetus has long been known to have cranial characteristics of both land and aquatic mammals"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200307/ai_n9246707/pg_13
Unfortunately the Nature article you quote costs $30 to view. However, in your search for truth, perhaps you'd be kind of enough to use your donated funds (that's what they're for, correct?) to pay for the rights to reprint the article in its entirety.
Your Ambulocetus comment is wholly unsupported, and I am in fact familiar with the source of your faulty claim. Below is a picture of a single Ambulocetus find, which was corss-referenced with other Ambulocetus finds. This is what Paleontologists DO.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/thewissen.jpg
Blow Hole Evolution is accounted for. The fossil record of the early cetaceans displays obvious nasal drift; Pakicetus (at the snout, like most land mammals), Rodhocetus (nasal passage above canine teeth), Basliosaurus (nasal passage along middle of snout).
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm
The reason there's no model for how a nasal passage made its way through a whale's brain is because it never happened. The blowhole is not "behind" the brain. This is an internet urban legend that refuses to go away. These diagrams/pictures should clear up some confusion.
http://www2.cruzio.com/~jaroyan/gfx/ex5b.gif http://digimorph.org/specimens/Tursiops_truncatus/
The length difference between Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus is irrelevant as they are 15 million years apart (more than enough time for this kind of growth). Phrases like "next link" are part of the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument I mentioned above. Furthermore, you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulocetus' length as reference point for refuting whale evolution.
You have misquoted me here in regards to Basilosaurus legs, and in doing so, have admitted that we have find fully aquatic whales with legs in the layers preceding modern whales
"EIAF says they were "useless" vestiges from when whales used to walk on land."
The transition from fish-to-amphibians is a transition from fins to feet, not water-to-land. Acanthostega and Icthyostega do indeed show such characteristics (more than 5 digts, but less than what we find on fins). No one says they were supposed to be land-dwellers, so your response is again, another straw man argument. This is the conclusion of the article you quote mined.
"So fingers, toes, and other elements of a vertebrate limb evolved before tetrapods spent any quality time on land."
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm
Not much of a disqualifier. The water-to-land transition can be seen with Dendrerpeton acadianum (more of a transition from ancient to modern amphibian).
Both mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, so there is nothing contradictory about finding an ancient dog-sized mammal that could eat small dinosaurs (in an era where much larger dinosaurs existed). You have to explain why we don't find Elephants, Bears, Tigers or even any of the extinct megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, or Smilodons) in the same layers as dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html
The temporary disappearance of land animals weighing over 10 Kg from the fossil record between the Creataceous and Paleogence transition (upon which, we begin to gradually find larger and larger mammals and birds as we move up the layers) can be accounted by Faunal Succession and a meteor crashing into the earth wiping everything out except small animals, which would over time, produce larger animals to fulfill recently vacated niches. A global flood wiping out life that supposedly existed in tact all of these years cannot account for such.
Turbidity currents leave obvious traces: large and small clasts mixed together, flow marks, and hardly any fossils. Your ad hoc use of Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states in the center of the country. There is simply no evidence of such an event being the cause of the extinction of Cambrian sea life (which is why it's not taught). In addition to this most of the world's fossils are partial and disarticulated, which contradicts the idea of a quick burial (making it the exception, not the rule).
Furthermore, the lowest vertebrates we find in the fossil record, the Ostracoderms, are in fact, mostly found in freshwater deposits (meaning they weren't dwelling in ocean depths). There is also the problem of Teleost fish. This diverse class of fish dwells in multiple environments, including the ocean floor. If the flood destroyed bottom-dwellers first and buried them in the bottom layers, we should find them in the Cambrian. Yet we don't find them until the Triassic (6 Geological eras later).
So you are left with having to explain how the flood buried fresh water fish towards the bottom layers of sediment, bottom-dwelling sea creatures above, amphibians, and a myriad of land dwelling reptiles and mammals, all below whales. Archaeopteryx, and plenty other "perching birds" who according you, floated to the top, are also found below whales, and other semi-modern-to-modern mammals, including semi-aquatic mammals (like Ambulocetus and Seals) who in turn, don't show up until well above the first crocodilian and other ancient semi-aquatic reptiles (semi-aquatic creatures should have been buried uniformly right?). It also doesn't explain the huge gap between dinosaurs and megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, Indricotherium, etc), nor why we only find remnants of human civilization (ie. buildings and agriculture) in the top layers.
You have to explain why/how Kangaroos, Koalas, Thylacines (and the other marsupials limited to Australia), all uniformly up and left, solely to Australia, Dodo Birds (flightless and completely helpless against common predators) to the Mauritius islands (where such predators didn't exist until man brought them) and why/how Armadillos, Rattlesnakes, and Poison Dart Frogs scurried, slithered, and hopped solely to the new world after the flood. What prevented camels, elephants, rhinoceroses, and other strictly Old World animals capable of faster travel from doing the same if such a bridge was so recently available?
There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck. Erosion can cause sediment to be re-deposited. Geology 101.
You have also misquoted me with this comment;
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless "tail" vestige."
Vestigial Organs (as defined by the Medical Dictionary) - an undeveloped organ that, in the embryo or in some ancestor, was well developed and functional.
"Completely useless" is not the meaning of vestigial, but rather the straw man definition creationists use. Aside from the medical definition of vestigial, here is the description Darwin gave.
"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other." - Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chap 14.
Python Spurs
1-These spurs are accompanied by a pelvic girdle (coincidently, so are legs).
2-Only males use them for mating yet females have them as well.
3-Like other snakes, python embryos have legs which they reabsorb (though pythons only reabsorb them to a point—at which point creationists believe they become spurs and not legs at all).
4-Other snakes apparently mate just fine without spurs.
5-Male pythons that have lost their spurs, apparently still mate
6-The anatomy of Pachyrhachis Problematicus (ancient fossilized snakes with limbs which we find in the same overall part of the world where we find Pythons) suggests close relationship to Pythons/Boas.
7-The tiny leg stubs we find in Pachyrhachis Problematicus wouldn't have allowed them to walk upright (therefore this doesn't validate the Genesis story).
Coccyx
Apparently we don't need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx). Coccydynia is the inflammation of the bony area (tailbone or coccyx) located between the buttocks is referred to as coccydynia. Coccydynia is associated with pain and tenderness at the tip of the tailbone between the buttocks. The pain is often worsened by sitting. The coccyx manifests itself as a TAIL in our embryonic stage, during which time it becomes reabsorbed to the point of becoming a coccyx. Evolution is stuck to "modifying what's there" whereas a Creator can create anything he/she wants. Think about it.
Wisdom Teeth
Interesting take on wisdom teeth. Now you have to explain why we're required to lose other teeth in order for these 3rd molars to become useful, and why suffering from them results from having the hygiene that allows you to keep all of our teeth.
The fossil record shows faunal succession, including transitional forms, and the creationist response to this is full of dishonest quote mining and straw man arguments.
These transitional fossils all appear in the fossil record above and below the fossils they unite. What make them transitional are their transitional features between the two types of animals (ie. reptiles and birds). Evolution works like a tree, not a ladder, and different species of the same order will evolve differently if at all depending on ecological factors. Paleontologists have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to. Fossilization is rare so while we can certainly research and understand the fauna that existed at a certain point in time, we can't expect to recover every single species.
Since you agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird, let's talk about a handful (word limit) of its reptilian features, not found in modern birds; a reptilian mouth (teeth, and no bill or a beak), trunk region and vertebrae region are free (fused in modern birds), and its neck attaches to the skull from the rear (not the middle). Like other birds with reptilian features (such as Confucius-ornis), Archaeopteryx is found in the layers below fully modern birds but well above the first therapod dinosaurs. If a 1998 article mistakenly suggested that a certain therapod was ancestral to Archaeopteryx, it does not make either of their transitional features go away, nor does it change the fact that we find in them in the expected intermediate layers. The two transitions share a common ancestor, and Archaeopteryx simply had more modern avian features.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/98/dinosaurs/interview.html
Biologists don't create new orders like "dino-birds" for transitional forms. It's either classified as a dinosaur or a bird, and birds are generally considered "avian dinosaurs." Hence, "it's just a bird" is not a rebuttal, and nor does your Alan Feduccia (The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill) quote mine. Feduccia believes that birds (which you agree includes Archaeopteryx) evolved from non-therapod reptiles. The conclusion is still the same; Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil for the reasons I gave above. You also leave out the fact that other bird experts disagree with Feduccia, and also support the therapod-bird connection.
Whale Evolution
Tapirs in fact lead a semi-aquatic lifestyle (so its not a disqualifier). Whale expert Phillip Gingerich (who you yourself quote) says;
"Pakicetus has long been known to have cranial characteristics of both land and aquatic mammals"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200307/ai_n9246707/pg_13
Unfortunately the Nature article you quote costs $30 to view. However, in your search for truth, perhaps you'd be kind of enough to use your donated funds (that's what they're for, correct?) to pay for the rights to reprint the article in its entirety.
Your Ambulocetus comment is wholly unsupported, and I am in fact familiar with the source of your faulty claim. Below is a picture of a single Ambulocetus find, which was corss-referenced with other Ambulocetus finds. This is what Paleontologists DO.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/thewissen.jpg
Blow Hole Evolution is accounted for. The fossil record of the early cetaceans displays obvious nasal drift; Pakicetus (at the snout, like most land mammals), Rodhocetus (nasal passage above canine teeth), Basliosaurus (nasal passage along middle of snout).
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm
The reason there's no model for how a nasal passage made its way through a whale's brain is because it never happened. The blowhole is not "behind" the brain. This is an internet urban legend that refuses to go away. These diagrams/pictures should clear up some confusion.
http://www2.cruzio.com/~jaroyan/gfx/ex5b.gif http://digimorph.org/specimens/Tursiops_truncatus/
The length difference between Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus is irrelevant as they are 15 million years apart (more than enough time for this kind of growth). Phrases like "next link" are part of the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument I mentioned above. Furthermore, you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulocetus' length as reference point for refuting whale evolution.
You have misquoted me here in regards to Basilosaurus legs, and in doing so, have admitted that we have find fully aquatic whales with legs in the layers preceding modern whales
"EIAF says they were "useless" vestiges from when whales used to walk on land."
The transition from fish-to-amphibians is a transition from fins to feet, not water-to-land. Acanthostega and Icthyostega do indeed show such characteristics (more than 5 digts, but less than what we find on fins). No one says they were supposed to be land-dwellers, so your response is again, another straw man argument. This is the conclusion of the article you quote mined.
"So fingers, toes, and other elements of a vertebrate limb evolved before tetrapods spent any quality time on land."
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm
Not much of a disqualifier. The water-to-land transition can be seen with Dendrerpeton acadianum (more of a transition from ancient to modern amphibian).
Both mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, so there is nothing contradictory about finding an ancient dog-sized mammal that could eat small dinosaurs (in an era where much larger dinosaurs existed). You have to explain why we don't find Elephants, Bears, Tigers or even any of the extinct megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, or Smilodons) in the same layers as dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html
The temporary disappearance of land animals weighing over 10 Kg from the fossil record between the Creataceous and Paleogence transition (upon which, we begin to gradually find larger and larger mammals and birds as we move up the layers) can be accounted by Faunal Succession and a meteor crashing into the earth wiping everything out except small animals, which would over time, produce larger animals to fulfill recently vacated niches. A global flood wiping out life that supposedly existed in tact all of these years cannot account for such.
Turbidity currents leave obvious traces: large and small clasts mixed together, flow marks, and hardly any fossils. Your ad hoc use of Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states in the center of the country. There is simply no evidence of such an event being the cause of the extinction of Cambrian sea life (which is why it's not taught). In addition to this most of the world's fossils are partial and disarticulated, which contradicts the idea of a quick burial (making it the exception, not the rule).
Furthermore, the lowest vertebrates we find in the fossil record, the Ostracoderms, are in fact, mostly found in freshwater deposits (meaning they weren't dwelling in ocean depths). There is also the problem of Teleost fish. This diverse class of fish dwells in multiple environments, including the ocean floor. If the flood destroyed bottom-dwellers first and buried them in the bottom layers, we should find them in the Cambrian. Yet we don't find them until the Triassic (6 Geological eras later).
So you are left with having to explain how the flood buried fresh water fish towards the bottom layers of sediment, bottom-dwelling sea creatures above, amphibians, and a myriad of land dwelling reptiles and mammals, all below whales. Archaeopteryx, and plenty other "perching birds" who according you, floated to the top, are also found below whales, and other semi-modern-to-modern mammals, including semi-aquatic mammals (like Ambulocetus and Seals) who in turn, don't show up until well above the first crocodilian and other ancient semi-aquatic reptiles (semi-aquatic creatures should have been buried uniformly right?). It also doesn't explain the huge gap between dinosaurs and megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, Indricotherium, etc), nor why we only find remnants of human civilization (ie. buildings and agriculture) in the top layers.
You have to explain why/how Kangaroos, Koalas, Thylacines (and the other marsupials limited to Australia), all uniformly up and left, solely to Australia, Dodo Birds (flightless and completely helpless against common predators) to the Mauritius islands (where such predators didn't exist until man brought them) and why/how Armadillos, Rattlesnakes, and Poison Dart Frogs scurried, slithered, and hopped solely to the new world after the flood. What prevented camels, elephants, rhinoceroses, and other strictly Old World animals capable of faster travel from doing the same if such a bridge was so recently available?
There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck. Erosion can cause sediment to be re-deposited. Geology 101.
You have also misquoted me with this comment;
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless "tail" vestige."
Vestigial Organs (as defined by the Medical Dictionary) - an undeveloped organ that, in the embryo or in some ancestor, was well developed and functional.
"Completely useless" is not the meaning of vestigial, but rather the straw man definition creationists use. Aside from the medical definition of vestigial, here is the description Darwin gave.
"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other." - Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chap 14.
Python Spurs
1-These spurs are accompanied by a pelvic girdle (coincidently, so are legs).
2-Only males use them for mating yet females have them as well.
3-Like other snakes, python embryos have legs which they reabsorb (though pythons only reabsorb them to a point—at which point creationists believe they become spurs and not legs at all).
4-Other snakes apparently mate just fine without spurs.
5-Male pythons that have lost their spurs, apparently still mate
6-The anatomy of Pachyrhachis Problematicus (ancient fossilized snakes with limbs which we find in the same overall part of the world where we find Pythons) suggests close relationship to Pythons/Boas.
7-The tiny leg stubs we find in Pachyrhachis Problematicus wouldn't have allowed them to walk upright (therefore this doesn't validate the Genesis story).
Coccyx
Apparently we don't need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx). Coccydynia is the inflammation of the bony area (tailbone or coccyx) located between the buttocks is referred to as coccydynia. Coccydynia is associated with pain and tenderness at the tip of the tailbone between the buttocks. The pain is often worsened by sitting. The coccyx manifests itself as a TAIL in our embryonic stage, during which time it becomes reabsorbed to the point of becoming a coccyx. Evolution is stuck to "modifying what's there" whereas a Creator can create anything he/she wants. Think about it.
Wisdom Teeth
Interesting take on wisdom teeth. Now you have to explain why we're required to lose other teeth in order for these 3rd molars to become useful, and why suffering from them results from having the hygiene that allows you to keep all of our teeth.
The fossil record shows faunal succession, including transitional forms, and the creationist response to this is full of dishonest quote mining and straw man arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)