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EIAF became instantly silent on the issue of human evolution after I presented evidence that falsified each of his out-of-date and so-called "proofs."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
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Dr. Jackson's Rebuttal
EIAF chose the topic "Geology Shows Fauna Succession." So, let’s stick to that only. It took two sentences for EIAF to argue the geologic Law of Superposition. That’s easy. Sediments do settle into rock layers from bottom to top. It took 1800 words for him to argue the “law” of faunal succession (evolution of animals). EIAF claims “there is evidence” a lot, but just saying it isn’t enough. Even his few examples are only opinion and interpretation, as we will see.
Worm to fish to amphibian, chordates live at different depths -- in the same order as the fossils left from Noah’s Flood – simple to understand. Turbidity currents (undersea mudslides) today do bury and kill all bottom sea life in its path, next the deep fish, then shallow fish. EIAF denies this observation by scientists. The global turbidity current of the Flood, made fossilization and extinction of many ocean species a must – not an impossibility, as EIAF tries to say.
Read EIAF’s geology discussions. You will see that everything he gives as proof of evolution really comes from this – he does not believe in a global flood on Earth. So why does he believe in a global flood on Mars? (And if he does not, then he’s against those he says he trusts.) 100% of Mars is a desert. 75% of Earth is two miles deep in water. Figure it out. Earth looks like it just had a Flood. EIAF’s denial of the obvious Flood is the foundation for his arguments. His emperor has no clothes.
What proof did EIAF actually give?
He says, “it's clear birds evolved from reptiles” because he thinks Archaeoptryx is the dino-bird missing link. But every “link fossil” that supposedly led up to Archaeoptryx is from the layers above it -- out of sync with evolution theory order (National Geographic, 7/98, p91 & whole article). The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” (Science, 2/5/93). Dead birds float, so that’s why their fossils are only in upper sediments – not because they took eons to evolve. Geology disqualifies Archaeoptryx as the bird missing link and confirms the mud layers coordinate with the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood.
EIAF names three missing links between land mammals and whales. Pakicetus was disqualified in 2001 when new fossils showed it was "no more amphibious than a tapir" (Nature, 9/20/01, p277-81). Certain bones that made Ambulocetus look like the missing link were actually in rock 16 feet above the fossil, so they’re not even part of it. Basilosaurus was ten times longer than Ambulocetus – way too big for the next link. Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. 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.
EIAF hints snake fossils with legs go against creation theory. But the Bible says snakes did once walk on legs (unlike whales) – no problem. “Legs” on boas and pythons mentioned by EIAF are really only spurs, which are used in mating. Ask someone with a pet boa if they have legs.
EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them. Some say erectus and ergaster are the same thing (National Geographic, 2/97, p78-91). So, this leaves only antecessor … which will likely soon join Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and EIAF’s other four links – as disqualified.
Only out of date textbooks say there are missing links for birds, whales, or humans. Don’t stand on opinion or theory. Real science uses facts, evidence, and data. Evolution uses urban myths, uncertainties, and outdated models like the ones EIAF has put in print as true and I have documented as false. Let’s continue.
EIAF says our coccyx is a useless “tail” vestige. Muscles for childbirth, rectum control, lower back, and rear abdomen are anchored there. And we sit on it. You’re using yours now. That’s not useless. His textbook is out of date.
He says “vestigial” 18-year molars prove evolution. Until modern dental care, wisdom teeth were needed to replace the ones lost by age 18. That’s not useless. All “vestigial” arguments are out of date, uninformed, and shamefully unprofessional. Let’s continue.
EIAF says a mammal fossil out of sync would disprove evolution. They say only small mouse-sized mammals evolved in the dino days. So how about one big enough to eat small dinosaurs? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html (“Discovery contradicts evolution theory,” Longview News-Journal, 1/13/05) How bad does it have to get to convince an evolutionist? I call out EIAF to surrender to the data.
EIAF agrees floods cause “rapid sedimentation”. And the bigger the Flood, the more rapid. But fossils can’t crosscut as EIAF claims. Only magma, quakes, intrusions, or erosion can crosscut rock layers. So polystrate tree and animal fossils disqualify evolution theory geology.
Australia-limited marsupials (like kangaroos) are a mystery to all scientists. Marsupial fossils are common except in Southeast Asia, where evolutionists and creationists agree they had to migrate to cross the old land bridge to Australia. Migration from Noah’s Ark to Australia followed that same path.
Dino extinction is also not just a creationist problem. Why do other reptiles survive today, but none from Order Dinosauria? Nobody has solved this yet. EIAF surely hasn't.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not “excellent examples” of fish-amphibian missing links. They had eight and seven bones in their fins “instead of having five digits – which was assumed to be the ancestral pattern among tetrapods” and “could not have managed to do much more than flop around on land … The limbs are pretty much paddles” (Science News, 5/22/90, p328). They are disqualified by the data.
All land animals survived the Flood (including reptiles and scorpions, to answer EIAF’s question) by getting onto the Ark – simple. EIAF has failed to prove even one “discrepancy” or “contradiction” in creation geology. They should be straightforward, easily understood, and easy to prove.
Does geology show animal evolution? EIAF can believe it does if he wants … but not for any of the reasons he gave on this forum. Perhaps he knows more and will tell us. If not, then I call for EIAF to concede there is no proof that “geology shows faunal succession.” The question has been called. Dr J
Worm to fish to amphibian, chordates live at different depths -- in the same order as the fossils left from Noah’s Flood – simple to understand. Turbidity currents (undersea mudslides) today do bury and kill all bottom sea life in its path, next the deep fish, then shallow fish. EIAF denies this observation by scientists. The global turbidity current of the Flood, made fossilization and extinction of many ocean species a must – not an impossibility, as EIAF tries to say.
Read EIAF’s geology discussions. You will see that everything he gives as proof of evolution really comes from this – he does not believe in a global flood on Earth. So why does he believe in a global flood on Mars? (And if he does not, then he’s against those he says he trusts.) 100% of Mars is a desert. 75% of Earth is two miles deep in water. Figure it out. Earth looks like it just had a Flood. EIAF’s denial of the obvious Flood is the foundation for his arguments. His emperor has no clothes.
What proof did EIAF actually give?
He says, “it's clear birds evolved from reptiles” because he thinks Archaeoptryx is the dino-bird missing link. But every “link fossil” that supposedly led up to Archaeoptryx is from the layers above it -- out of sync with evolution theory order (National Geographic, 7/98, p91 & whole article). The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” (Science, 2/5/93). Dead birds float, so that’s why their fossils are only in upper sediments – not because they took eons to evolve. Geology disqualifies Archaeoptryx as the bird missing link and confirms the mud layers coordinate with the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood.
EIAF names three missing links between land mammals and whales. Pakicetus was disqualified in 2001 when new fossils showed it was "no more amphibious than a tapir" (Nature, 9/20/01, p277-81). Certain bones that made Ambulocetus look like the missing link were actually in rock 16 feet above the fossil, so they’re not even part of it. Basilosaurus was ten times longer than Ambulocetus – way too big for the next link. Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. 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.
EIAF hints snake fossils with legs go against creation theory. But the Bible says snakes did once walk on legs (unlike whales) – no problem. “Legs” on boas and pythons mentioned by EIAF are really only spurs, which are used in mating. Ask someone with a pet boa if they have legs.
EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them. Some say erectus and ergaster are the same thing (National Geographic, 2/97, p78-91). So, this leaves only antecessor … which will likely soon join Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and EIAF’s other four links – as disqualified.
Only out of date textbooks say there are missing links for birds, whales, or humans. Don’t stand on opinion or theory. Real science uses facts, evidence, and data. Evolution uses urban myths, uncertainties, and outdated models like the ones EIAF has put in print as true and I have documented as false. Let’s continue.
EIAF says our coccyx is a useless “tail” vestige. Muscles for childbirth, rectum control, lower back, and rear abdomen are anchored there. And we sit on it. You’re using yours now. That’s not useless. His textbook is out of date.
He says “vestigial” 18-year molars prove evolution. Until modern dental care, wisdom teeth were needed to replace the ones lost by age 18. That’s not useless. All “vestigial” arguments are out of date, uninformed, and shamefully unprofessional. Let’s continue.
EIAF says a mammal fossil out of sync would disprove evolution. They say only small mouse-sized mammals evolved in the dino days. So how about one big enough to eat small dinosaurs? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html (“Discovery contradicts evolution theory,” Longview News-Journal, 1/13/05) How bad does it have to get to convince an evolutionist? I call out EIAF to surrender to the data.
EIAF agrees floods cause “rapid sedimentation”. And the bigger the Flood, the more rapid. But fossils can’t crosscut as EIAF claims. Only magma, quakes, intrusions, or erosion can crosscut rock layers. So polystrate tree and animal fossils disqualify evolution theory geology.
Australia-limited marsupials (like kangaroos) are a mystery to all scientists. Marsupial fossils are common except in Southeast Asia, where evolutionists and creationists agree they had to migrate to cross the old land bridge to Australia. Migration from Noah’s Ark to Australia followed that same path.
Dino extinction is also not just a creationist problem. Why do other reptiles survive today, but none from Order Dinosauria? Nobody has solved this yet. EIAF surely hasn't.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not “excellent examples” of fish-amphibian missing links. They had eight and seven bones in their fins “instead of having five digits – which was assumed to be the ancestral pattern among tetrapods” and “could not have managed to do much more than flop around on land … The limbs are pretty much paddles” (Science News, 5/22/90, p328). They are disqualified by the data.
All land animals survived the Flood (including reptiles and scorpions, to answer EIAF’s question) by getting onto the Ark – simple. EIAF has failed to prove even one “discrepancy” or “contradiction” in creation geology. They should be straightforward, easily understood, and easy to prove.
Does geology show animal evolution? EIAF can believe it does if he wants … but not for any of the reasons he gave on this forum. Perhaps he knows more and will tell us. If not, then I call for EIAF to concede there is no proof that “geology shows faunal succession.” The question has been called. Dr J
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's Rebuttal
How did Noah get Kangaroos to Australia?
Short of calling the entire Geology and Paleontology communities a group of liars, you'll be hard-pressed to make the case that we find the same fauna throughout these superpositioned layers. Furthermore, your use of the word Phylum leaves your argument a bit vague and overbroad and may confuse readers, as they may not be aware that "Phylum" is an extremely generic classification system, since everything from humans to the most primitive fish (along with every other vertebrate; like birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc) belong to the Phylum of Chordata. So technically your statement is true, since the primitive fish of the Cambrian fall into the same exact Phylum as we do. However, this does nothing to change the fact that we find a gradation of different Chordates as we move up the layers. Readers who are not familiar with the meaning of "Phylum" may think you are making the argument that we indeed find modern mammals and reptiles in Cambrian, Ordivivian, Silaurian and all the other ancient layers where the only vertebrates we find are still primitive fish.
Within the Pre-Cambrian, the Vendian layers clearly contain a limited number of primitive animals. So far, Profiera (sponges) have been discovered in this layer, as well as a number of other primitive orders. Dickinsonia, Cyclomedusa, Eoporpita, Arkarua, Kimberella are a few examples of Vendian layer creatures with semblance to modern day counterparts, yet sometimes difficult to categorize due to anatomical differences. It is clear that we find more than just microbes in the layers preceding Chordates.
I am unaware that anyone has ever proposed the idea that flying squirrels were ancestral to bats. There is no reason modern flying squirrels should possess the exact characteristics between bats and their ancestors as they are contemporaneous to one another. Generally when Creationists refer to transitional forms they are referring to fossils that "should" contain the intermediate steps between two types of animals. Such transitions have indeed been recovered. In addition to the examples I gave in my opening statement, I would also like to refer to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, as they provide excellent examples of the transition from fish to amphibians. They are found in the upper Devonian; well 'above' the layers we first start finding fish and well before the layers we start finding amphibians and reptiles.
There are a number of Paleontological facts that disqualify a worldwide flood as the cause of fossil placement. First there is no reason that a flood should bury marine animals as they should be most likely to survive a flood given that they are already suited for living in water and it seems unlikely that the existence of more water would not only cause their deaths, but do so before animals not suited for an aquatic life.
There is also the task of explaining how and why Noah's ark would have been able to leave the animals in the various continents. Because we only find Kangaroos (and their fossils) and other large Marsupials in Australia, one would have a hard time explaining how and why this is the case in the context of a worldwide flood and an ark that preserved a few animals. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if these animals share a common ancestry with their placental relatives whom they were isolated from due to the shifting of continents, and fulfilled parallel niches within Australia via speciation. Unlike the flood/ark conjecture, faunal succession/common ancestry along with continental drift explains why we find fossilized lions (even larger than contemporary African lions) here in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, there is no reason why Komodo Dragons, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Tigers, Seals, and Peacocks should have survived the flood, while Mosasaurs, Mammoths, Tricerotops, Velociraptors, Ambulecetus, and Archaeopteryxes didn't. Not only is there no reason for a flood to wipe our sea dwelling creatures, but they themselves should not exist in the sequence they do. If a flood is somehow responsible for the destruction of sea life, there is no reason whales should only exist in the upper layers (starting with the Palogene), when we find rudimentary variations of fish (as opposed to modern fish) as low as the Cambrian. In addition to the wide berth between whales and ancient fish, we find plenty of land dwelling vertebrates in between the two, in addition to animal burrows (meaning the deposits must have happened over time).
If the flood is responsible for the extinction of certain birds, then you have to explain how flightless birds like Dodos and Ostriches survived the same.If a flood happened today, it would not bury life in the same order as Evolutionary Theory. Furthermore, we would find remnants of human civilization buried and mixed along the same layers as everything else, not merely in the upper layers. Given that reptiles and amphibians tend to be well-adapted to water, we would find them in layers above many if not most of the mammals, since many mammals are simply not accustomed to water. Fish would be the most successful given the fact that their environment would only becoming larger. Arthropods not suited for water, such as Scorpions and Praying Mantises would not survive such a flood.
The flood and ark explanation provides nothing more than a series of ad hoc explanations for the placement of fossils, and requires even more ad hoc explanations for the various discrepancies and contradictions it creates.
Short of calling the entire Geology and Paleontology communities a group of liars, you'll be hard-pressed to make the case that we find the same fauna throughout these superpositioned layers. Furthermore, your use of the word Phylum leaves your argument a bit vague and overbroad and may confuse readers, as they may not be aware that "Phylum" is an extremely generic classification system, since everything from humans to the most primitive fish (along with every other vertebrate; like birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc) belong to the Phylum of Chordata. So technically your statement is true, since the primitive fish of the Cambrian fall into the same exact Phylum as we do. However, this does nothing to change the fact that we find a gradation of different Chordates as we move up the layers. Readers who are not familiar with the meaning of "Phylum" may think you are making the argument that we indeed find modern mammals and reptiles in Cambrian, Ordivivian, Silaurian and all the other ancient layers where the only vertebrates we find are still primitive fish.
Within the Pre-Cambrian, the Vendian layers clearly contain a limited number of primitive animals. So far, Profiera (sponges) have been discovered in this layer, as well as a number of other primitive orders. Dickinsonia, Cyclomedusa, Eoporpita, Arkarua, Kimberella are a few examples of Vendian layer creatures with semblance to modern day counterparts, yet sometimes difficult to categorize due to anatomical differences. It is clear that we find more than just microbes in the layers preceding Chordates.
I am unaware that anyone has ever proposed the idea that flying squirrels were ancestral to bats. There is no reason modern flying squirrels should possess the exact characteristics between bats and their ancestors as they are contemporaneous to one another. Generally when Creationists refer to transitional forms they are referring to fossils that "should" contain the intermediate steps between two types of animals. Such transitions have indeed been recovered. In addition to the examples I gave in my opening statement, I would also like to refer to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, as they provide excellent examples of the transition from fish to amphibians. They are found in the upper Devonian; well 'above' the layers we first start finding fish and well before the layers we start finding amphibians and reptiles.
There are a number of Paleontological facts that disqualify a worldwide flood as the cause of fossil placement. First there is no reason that a flood should bury marine animals as they should be most likely to survive a flood given that they are already suited for living in water and it seems unlikely that the existence of more water would not only cause their deaths, but do so before animals not suited for an aquatic life.
There is also the task of explaining how and why Noah's ark would have been able to leave the animals in the various continents. Because we only find Kangaroos (and their fossils) and other large Marsupials in Australia, one would have a hard time explaining how and why this is the case in the context of a worldwide flood and an ark that preserved a few animals. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if these animals share a common ancestry with their placental relatives whom they were isolated from due to the shifting of continents, and fulfilled parallel niches within Australia via speciation. Unlike the flood/ark conjecture, faunal succession/common ancestry along with continental drift explains why we find fossilized lions (even larger than contemporary African lions) here in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, there is no reason why Komodo Dragons, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Tigers, Seals, and Peacocks should have survived the flood, while Mosasaurs, Mammoths, Tricerotops, Velociraptors, Ambulecetus, and Archaeopteryxes didn't. Not only is there no reason for a flood to wipe our sea dwelling creatures, but they themselves should not exist in the sequence they do. If a flood is somehow responsible for the destruction of sea life, there is no reason whales should only exist in the upper layers (starting with the Palogene), when we find rudimentary variations of fish (as opposed to modern fish) as low as the Cambrian. In addition to the wide berth between whales and ancient fish, we find plenty of land dwelling vertebrates in between the two, in addition to animal burrows (meaning the deposits must have happened over time).
If the flood is responsible for the extinction of certain birds, then you have to explain how flightless birds like Dodos and Ostriches survived the same.If a flood happened today, it would not bury life in the same order as Evolutionary Theory. Furthermore, we would find remnants of human civilization buried and mixed along the same layers as everything else, not merely in the upper layers. Given that reptiles and amphibians tend to be well-adapted to water, we would find them in layers above many if not most of the mammals, since many mammals are simply not accustomed to water. Fish would be the most successful given the fact that their environment would only becoming larger. Arthropods not suited for water, such as Scorpions and Praying Mantises would not survive such a flood.
The flood and ark explanation provides nothing more than a series of ad hoc explanations for the placement of fossils, and requires even more ad hoc explanations for the various discrepancies and contradictions it creates.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Creation vs Evolution Debate Intro.
We have all, at one point in our lives, wondered "How did we all get here?". This is a reasonable question and it has been asked for thousands for years! Through science, men and women have set out to answer that very question. Using different fields of science, these individuals have gathered information and evidence in the search for this answer (among many others).
Today, ELIE is very excited to announce that we will be hosting a debate that will feature 2 rival views of the Origin of Species!! Our 2 debators are:
1) Dr. G. Charles Jackson, who will be defending the view of Creation.
2) Evolution is a Fact, who will be defending the view of Evolution.
The topic of this debate will be "Does Geologic Record Show Faunal Succession?"
Here are the rules of the debate:
Opening Statements will be made by both parties on Friday, June 8th (as to avoid the possiblity of one party making their opening statement merely a 'first rebuttal' of the other party's opening statement) and will be a maxium of 2,000 words (quotes included)
The first 'first rebuttal' will be made by 'Evolution is a Fact' no later than Monday, June 11th and the second 'first rebuttal' will be made by Dr. Jackson no later Thursday, June 14th.. There will be a maxium of 1,750 words (quotes included)
The first 'second rebuttal' will be made by 'Evolution is a Fact' no later than Monday, June 18th and the second 'second rebuttal' will be made by Dr. Jackson no later than Friday, June 22nd.. There will be a maxium of 1,300 words (quotes included)
The closing statements will be made by both parties on Monday, June 25th.. There will be a maxium of 1,000 words (quotes included)
After the closing statements are made, each party will be allowed to ask the opposing party 3 questions (This will make up our 'Open Discussion' part of the debate)
These questions will be posted by Wednesday, June 27th.
Each party will have until Sunday, June 30th days to give a 1,000 word response to each question..
Then the debate will be over, and there will be a discussion of the debate going on on our myspace page.. www.myspace.com/lies_exposed
*Things that must be remembered.. The word limits are more guide-lines than LIMITS.. if thoughts need to be finished after the word limit has been exceeded that is fine.. but no new thoughts are to made after the word limit has been exceeded.. this is only fair..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)