The gaps keep getting smaller and smaller

No, the gaps are getting more numerous.

I'm not sure if you actually read the paper. It describes finds from Scotland that fill in gap in the timeframe of the fossil record, not a physiological gap in the transition from fish to tetrapods. The "proto-tetrapods" are proper amphibians and not some monstrous intermediate kind.

Atheistoclast said: I'm not sure if you actually read the paper. It describes finds from Scotland that fill in gap in the timeframe of the fossil record, not a physiological gap in the transition from fish to tetrapods. The "proto-tetrapods" are proper amphibians and not some monstrous intermediate kind.

Per still comments regularly here:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

Although he hasn't actually talked about this latest paper.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Atheistoclast said: I'm not sure if you actually read the paper. It describes finds from Scotland that fill in gap in the timeframe of the fossil record, not a physiological gap in the transition from fish to tetrapods. The "proto-tetrapods" are proper amphibians and not some monstrous intermediate kind.

The "gap" referred to is Romer's Gap, which is, as I plainly indicated, a temporal gap, even giving the years for it. Who suggested they were some "monstrous intermediate kind", assuming that in contrast to most creationists, you can provide an operational definition of "kind"? Transitional sequences are composed of instances from very early (say, Eusthenopteron) through "monstrous" intermediates like Tiktaalik to amphibians in the right time frame 25-30 million years later. The PNAS paper describes the latter. And, as I've noted, Atheistoclast gets one comment per thread of mine; that was it.

Atheistoclast said: The translation of the Latin word, genus means "kind". In fact, they both come from the same Proto-Indo-European root. Can you provide an operational definition for the term, genus?

Paul Burnett said: So if genus = kind, how many genera were on Noah's Ark? (I've worried for years how many wood-eating beetles were on Noah's Ark, not to mention beavers and termites and carpenter bees.)

Reed,

You're both right. The gaps are getting more numerous and smaller.

All that is shown by these fossils is diversity of creatures.
Here and always the fossil record is not biological evidence based on biological investigation using the scientific method.
casts of creatures should not be important or needed in a biological subject.

if the only way or a needed way is to see geological sequence between these fossil types to determine evolutionary relationship then its not about biological research of the casts but geological facts.
Its been the great flaw of evolutionary biology to draw its confidence from evidence that is not from biological investigation.
One can not do biology on rocks.

theres plenty of room to see these fossils as unrelated simply having bits and pieces perfectly suited to them in a more diverse past.

No, Byers. What it shows is that animals with a mosaic of fish-like and amphibian-like basal features once existed, but not modern salamanders, frogs and newts. These animals existed in the specific window of time in which the paleontological evidence says that amphibians were separating from fish. That separation is confirmed by these fossils, as predicted and explained by evolution. Creation, which says merely that all animals were created at the same time, does not predict this, and explains none of it.

Geology and paleontology support each other, Byers, just as any reasonable person would expect, seeing as they both partake of objective fact. Nonsensical blather about how the one can't be used to support the other is simply idiotic.

Both Byers and Atheisto@$$hole are displaying their profound arrogance and ignorance on a galactic scale. Evolution explains perfectly the specific forms of these fossils and their locations in a way Creationism cannot. Indeed, if Creationism were valid, those fossils should never have been found at all.

Indeed, why would a Creator even bother with amphibians, you morons?

Let me preface this with the note that I am not a scientist, so I welcome corrections.

As far as I can tell, genus is defined as a convenient fairly small collection of species.

There is no objective definition of "genus" which applies uniformly across the world of life. There is little in common between genera of plants, of fungi, of insects, of molluscs, of vertebrates, etc. There is no sharp dividing line between species which are in one genus and those in another. The same is true of other taxonomic ranks like family, order, class, subfamily, subgenus, tribe. The only rank which has a more or less objective definition is species.

This is a result of the evolution of species.

RBH, I just looked at Clack's website. For those who don't know, Per Ahlberg was her first Ph. D. student. He's now a professor of evolutionary organismal biology at the University of Uppsala.

As for Romer's Gap, Clack collaborated with her former postdoc Michael Coates (now a colleague of Shubin's at Chicago) on this symposium paper:

Coates, M. I. and Clack, J. A. 1995 Romer's Gap - tetrapod origins and terrestriality. In Arsenault, M. Lelièvre and Janvier P. (Eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Lower Vertebrates, Miguasha: Studies on Early Vertebrates. Bulletin de la Muséum national de l'Histoire naturelle, Paris. 17, 373-388.

As soon as I heard about Shubin's (Technically Shubin et al.) discovery of Tiktaalik, I was quite optimistic that we'd see eventually the entire transition from lobe-finned fishes to early tetrapods; Clack and her colleagues are demonstrating that quite convincingly.

TomS said: As far as I can tell, genus is defined as a convenient fairly small collection of species.

There is no objective definition of “genus” which applies uniformly across the world of life. There is little in common between genera of plants, of fungi, of insects, of molluscs, of vertebrates, etc. There is no sharp dividing line between species which are in one genus and those in another. The same is true of other taxonomic ranks like family, order, class, subfamily, subgenus, tribe. The only rank which has a more or less objective definition is species.

As another non-scientist, with respect to methods of classification, identification of relatedness between species, clades, or whatever: Isn't it a fact that as far as everything we have discovered and learned about biology and the history of life on this planet, supported by facts and evidence from so many facets of science over 150 years, that life on earth is one great continuum, with everything related to everything else?

No evidence, nothing points to 'special creation' of even the most basic piece of biology. Even the most virulent of pathogens are the inevitable result of evolution, and not what according to creationist thinking would have to be God's own unique creation.

If God created them, we are commiting a great sin by fighting them. Leave HIV, Ebola, Malaria, Borelia, TBE or TBC alone to do what the Lord put them here for. Even with the mutations they are picking up all the time to make them even more sinister.

As another non-scientist, with respect to methods of classification, identification of relatedness between species, clades, or whatever: Isn’t it a fact that as far as everything we have discovered and learned about biology and the history of life on this planet, supported by facts and evidence from so many facets of science over 150 years, that life on earth is one great continuum, with everything related to everything else?

No evidence, nothing points to ‘special creation’ of even the most basic piece of biology. Even the most virulent of pathogens are the inevitable result of evolution, and not what according to creationist thinking would have to be God’s own unique creation.

If God created them, we are commiting a great sin by fighting them. Leave HIV, Ebola, Malaria, Borelia, TBE or TBC alone to do what the Lord put them here for. Even with the mutations they are picking up all the time to make them even more sinister.

dalehusband said: Indeed, why would a Creator even bother with amphibians, you morons?

dalehusband said: Indeed, why would a Creator even bother with amphibians, you morons?

TomS said: There is no objective definition of "genus" which applies uniformly across the world of life. There is little in common between genera of plants, of fungi, of insects, of molluscs, of vertebrates, etc. There is no sharp dividing line between species which are in one genus and those in another. The same is true of other taxonomic ranks like family, order, class, subfamily, subgenus, tribe. The only rank which has a more or less objective definition is species.

Atheistoclast said: And there is no objective definition of "kind" either. So, please, give up on this pretense that the taxonomy proposed by the creationists is any less rigorous than that proposed by the evolutionists.

Just Bob said: Ah, but "kinds" are supposed, by creationists, to be absolutely rigorous! Each was created in a separate act, and they share no common ancestry. There is an absolutely rigorous barrier between "kinds" such that it is and always has been impossible for one "kind", say artiodactyls, to evolve into another "kind", such as cetaceans.

The strange thing is, with these absolute biological barriers, creationists are unable to show any convincing mechanism that could halt the evolution of species within a "kind" and prevent them from becoming other "kinds". They can't even identify taxonomically where the barriers are.

So although the definition of "kinds", supposedly being based on an absolutely rigorous biological phenomenon, should be easy, creationists can't seem to manage it.

Eventually there will be an infinite number of infinitessimally small gaps.

Atheistoclast said:

Just Bob said: Ah, but "kinds" are supposed, by creationists, to be absolutely rigorous! Each was created in a separate act, and they share no common ancestry. There is an absolutely rigorous barrier between "kinds" such that it is and always has been impossible for one "kind", say artiodactyls, to evolve into another "kind", such as cetaceans.

Well, let's look at the artiodactyls. They are not really a "kind" - they are just a loose grouping of mammals sharing a particular feature. Giraffes and hippopotami are both artiodactyls and yet their morphology and physiology couldn't be any more different except for having an even number of toes. Indeed, the artiodactyl "order" breaks down nicely into separate "infraorders" and "families" which I would regard as being the real "kinds".

The strange thing is, with these absolute biological barriers, creationists are unable to show any convincing mechanism that could halt the evolution of species within a "kind" and prevent them from becoming other "kinds". They can't even identify taxonomically where the barriers are.

Natural selection is that mechanism. It keeps things as they are.

So although the definition of "kinds", supposedly being based on an absolutely rigorous biological phenomenon, should be easy, creationists can't seem to manage it.

Animals from different "kinds" cannot interbreed with one another. Animals of the same "kind" should be able to (though perhaps not leaving fertile offspring). Hence, zebras and horses are the same kind but not pigs and cows.

Grrr. Take an evening and day off and it goes to Hell. I'll leave what's there, but that's it for Atheistoclas.

Eventually there will be an infinite number of infinitesimally small gaps.

Natural selection is that mechanism. It keeps things as they are.

Rolf said:

Natural selection is that mechanism. It keeps things as they are.

I recently learned something that got stuck in my mind. It was about dog evolution. There are so many breeds of dogs, with widely differing characteristics. The short legged dogs are special because it seems they share a common ancestor, a single mutation responsible for that characteristic. I presume that is a case of artificial selection, not natural selection. But that is just a matter of circumstance. I don’t see any reason why a mutation with such obvious impact might not become fixed if favoured by environmental factors. I understand that work is under way to determine if a similar condition in humans is caused by a similar mutation as well. I would change the “keeps things as they are” to “may keeps things that are of value whether they are ancient or brand new”.

Rolf said: The short legged dogs are special because it seems they share a common ancestor, a single mutation responsible for that characteristic.

The point has been made several times, but perhaps bears repeating: there is no essential difference between artificial and natural selection. Objectively speaking, the breeder is just part of the dog's environment. Anyhow, people are not the only organisms whose activities change the adaptive landscape for other organisms. Coevolution of predators and prey and parasites and hosts provide plenty of examples, not to mention sexual selection, a mechanism that produces outcomes just as artificial looking as bull dogs.

Natural selection by itself only selects what is there to be selected among. Once there is a trait that confers some benefit, it can be acted upon by natural selection to be preserved and promoted. The novel features themselves arise through different processes.

This does not mean that natural selection halts the evolution of a species; natural selection is part of the evolution of a species. It is a pathway for changes to spread, not just a roadblock to prevent changes and keep things within some bounds other than "what works and what doesn't." Natural selection is part of the evolutionary process that drives speciation, and speciation drives the divergence at higher levels. Natural Selection is no barrier to changes in "kind," it is part of the engine.

For some reason I'm intermittently unable to move comments in the Movable Type control panel. Meanwhile please ignore Atheistoclast. Thanks!

I once intended to study biology but got caught by chemistry and never made it to my intended field of study.

Leaving creationist nonsense aside, I understand that there is no strict definition of higher entities of biological classification like genera, orders, classes etc. but I have also been told by some biologists that cladistics is a way out of this dilemma. That means that one tries to classify not from exterior appearance but from common ancestry. One wellknown example is how the species man, chimpansee and gorilla are classified. Traditionally, the great apes were grouped together and man was separate. The cladist would group man and chimpansee (including the bonobo) together since they are believed to have a common ancestor separate from the gorillas.

It is of course a common situation that scientists disagree with each other but still agree that further data will resolve the conflict. I felt that this conflict in biological systematics was of a different kind, one which could not be resolved that way, and that this is a rare case in modern science.

Chris Lawson said: Reed, You're both right. The gaps are getting more numerous and smaller.

Mike Clinch said: ... One wonders what would happen if the fossil record were so good that we had a geneaology instead of a reasonable interpretation of descent.

For some reason I’m intermittently unable to move comments in the Movable Type control panel.

Meanwhile please ignore Atheistoclast.

Mike, there is no need to wonder, because while we can't do this with fossils, with bacteria we can not only demonstrate evolution of useful traits like antibiotic resistance in real time, we can show the exact chain of mutations as the proteins evolve. And it still isn't enough evidence for the creationists to accept evolution.

Chris Lawson said: ...it still isn't enough evidence for the creationists to accept evolution.

RM said: Leaving creationist nonsense aside, I understand that there is no strict definition of higher entities of biological classification like genera, orders, classes etc. but I have also been told by some biologists that cladistics is a way out of this dilemma.

RM said: I once intended to study biology but got caught by chemistry and never made it to my intended field of study. Leaving creationist nonsense aside, I understand that there is no strict definition of higher entities of biological classification like genera, orders, classes etc. but I have also been told by some biologists that cladistics is a way out of this dilemma. That means that one tries to classify not from exterior appearance but from common ancestry. One wellknown example is how the species man, chimpansee and gorilla are classified. Traditionally, the great apes were grouped together and man was separate. The cladist would group man and chimpansee (including the bonobo) together since they are believed to have a common ancestor separate from the gorillas. It is of course a common situation that scientists disagree with each other but still agree that further data will resolve the conflict. I felt that this conflict in biological systematics was of a different kind, one which could not be resolved that way, and that this is a rare case in modern science.

TomS said:

RM said: Leaving creationist nonsense aside, I understand that there is no strict definition of higher entities of biological classification like genera, orders, classes etc. but I have also been told by some biologists that cladistics is a way out of this dilemma.

I was going to try to write out what the status is of these various "higher entities" of biological classification, but eventually I realized that I am not up to the task. Is there some good explanation of it somewhere? The easiest is species, but even that is difficult. Each individual genus can be defined, but there is no good definition of genus which distinguishes a genus from a species or a family uniformly and objectively throughout the world of life. Clade is easier to define (I think), uniformly and objectively.

Chris Lawson said: Mike, there is no need to wonder, because while we can't do this with fossils, with bacteria we can not only demonstrate evolution of useful traits like antibiotic resistance in real time, we can show the exact chain of mutations as the proteins evolve. And it still isn't enough evidence for the creationists to accept evolution.

Mike Clinch said:

Chris Lawson said: Mike, there is no need to wonder, because while we can't do this with fossils, with bacteria we can not only demonstrate evolution of useful traits like antibiotic resistance in real time, we can show the exact chain of mutations as the proteins evolve. And it still isn't enough evidence for the creationists to accept evolution.

Chris, I (a non-biologist) remember hearing about those experiments. I believe the YEC's and ID's dismissed it as "merely microevolution". Which leads to another canard: "Any genetic change that can be demonstrated in real time, or proven to a legal certainty is merely microevolution. If you have to bring geology or time into it, it is unproven macroevolution." And finally, anything thought to be unproven macroevolution which is subsequently proven absolutely true automatically becomes microevolution.

John said: What Richard Lenski and his students and postdocs at Michigan State University have done in their ongoing lab bacterial experiment includes the birth of new species via microevolution. As others, including Nick Matzke, have noted here, microevolution and macroevolution are merely part of an evolutionary continuum that is driven by Natural Selection, genetic drift and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Agreed.

As if one could have argued against Newton in his time (and at any time before Sputnik) that the only experimental evidence for Newtonian mechanics was only about things on Earth, and didn't prove that the heavenly bodies moved according to those same laws. Distinguish between "micromechanics" and "macromechanics".

Science has its real power in telling us about things which are not directly observed. Things which are too big, too small, too fast, too slow, too distant (in space or time), or otherwise imperceptible to our senses: atoms, electromagnetism, ...

Mike Clinch said:

John said: What Richard Lenski and his students and postdocs at Michigan State University have done in their ongoing lab bacterial experiment includes the birth of new species via microevolution. As others, including Nick Matzke, have noted here, microevolution and macroevolution are merely part of an evolutionary continuum that is driven by Natural Selection, genetic drift and other evolutionary mechanisms.

John, I agree completely. I'm just pointing out the logically inconsistent ways that the IDers and YECists use to dismiss good science in favor of their idiotic alternative views.

TomS said: Agreed. As if one could have argued against Newton in his time (and at any time before Sputnik) that the only experimental evidence for Newtonian mechanics was only about things on Earth, and didn't prove that the heavenly bodies moved according to those same laws. Distinguish between "micromechanics" and "macromechanics". Science has its real power in telling us about things which are not directly observed. Things which are too big, too small, too fast, too slow, too distant (in space or time), or otherwise imperceptible to our senses: atoms, electromagnetism, ...

Robert Byers said: One can't do biology on a rock.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: One can't do biology on a rock.

...which explains why your head can't understand biology. Okay, just for giggles, for a moment let's set aside all of geology and paleontology and fossils and pretend Charles Darwin never lived. How then do you explain the findings of evolutionary developmental biology ("evo devo") and other recent findings of the similarity and relationship of all living things?

DS said: By the way, NOVA recently had a special on dog evolution. They showed how comparative genomics is being used to search for diseases that are predisposed by mutations in humans by looking at susceptible dog breeds. The program illustrates how important the story of dog evolution is and how we are learning more about it every day. It also illustrates the power of new comparative genomics approaches to the study of evolution. It is a great example of how evolutionary theory is used in medicine, something that creationists are fond of denying for some reason. I highly recommend the show. Perhaps someone would want to devote a thread to the topic. Maybe then Joe could describe to us how natural selection prevented any changes in the dog lineage.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said: Agreed. As if one could have argued against Newton in his time (and at any time before Sputnik) that the only experimental evidence for Newtonian mechanics was only about things on Earth, and didn't prove that the heavenly bodies moved according to those same laws. Distinguish between "micromechanics" and "macromechanics". Science has its real power in telling us about things which are not directly observed. Things which are too big, too small, too fast, too slow, too distant (in space or time), or otherwise imperceptible to our senses: atoms, electromagnetism, ...

Not the same thing. Fossils are not biological evidence for evolution. This because there is no biology being done on these casts of former biological entities. The fossils only have meaning if there sequence in order of time is real. Yet this is still not biological investigation. If the geological time sequence was wrong after all and these fossils did not show evolution of this to that but only varieties in different areas that were laid by geological processes within the same time frame then a critic would demand WHY was the biology wrong! The answer would be no biology was done. All that was done was observing one cast relative to another cast. Thats it and there ain't no more . The window of error opportunity in all this was using fossils to demonstrate a biological conclusion. Yet without the geological presumption the biological conclusion of evolution of this to that has no evidence from biological research. A fatal flaw of logic that Darwin himself made. One can't do biology on a rock.

DS said: Your honor I'm innocent. I know my fingerprints ...

Just Bob said:

DS said: Your honor I'm innocent. I know my fingerprints ...

OK, let's call Byers's denial of geology, fossils, and everything else---the OJ defense.

Robert Byers said: Fossils are not biological evidence for evolution. This because there is no biology being done on these casts of former biological entities. ... One can't do biology on a rock.

One can’t do biology on a rock.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Robert Byers said: Fossils are not biological evidence for evolution. This because there is no biology being done on these casts of former biological entities. ... One can't do biology on a rock.

Two words: "Comparative anatomy."

Fossils are the relicts of living things - even Byers admits that. "Casts", he says. So tell me, Byers, how can they not contain information about the living things themselves? And why should this information from fossils not be compared with information from other fossils? And where this comparison demonstrates morphological change, why should this be denied?

I know why you deny it, Byers. It's because you're a religious loon, and therefore by definition not rational. But why should a rational person deny it?

Robert Byers said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Robert Byers said: Fossils are not biological evidence for evolution. This because there is no biology being done on these casts of former biological entities. ... One can't do biology on a rock.

Two words: "Comparative anatomy."

Fine. Compare away. yet this still not biological investigation. Its just comparing creatures bodies. its not doing biological research on biological processes. The claim in all these things is that the casts(fossils) being in sequences (according to a different field of study) is what counts for biological research. The thought exercise here is as follows. If the casts/fossils in question being said to be evidence for evolution because of their sequence WERE rather found in the same strata level would they still be said to be evidence for evolution? surely the answer would be no. Therefore the only evidence for a evolutionary connection is the geological sequences. Therefore its not a biological investigation that is the origin of the biological conclusion. Truly one can not do biology on a rock. One can draw conclusions but not claim they are from biological investigation. Then the creationist can say there is a window of opportunity for error to have slipped into this evolution business. Creationists quarrel with the claims of evidence made by evolutionists but I say there is a bigger flaw in all this. From Darwin till now fossils are not relevant to biological conclusions if there is bo biology being done on the fossils but rather just lines of reasoning about these casts . Biology is a real thing. its a very special case to have casts of biology in the first place . too then merely COMPARE them and proclaim the biological processes called evolution are proven by these casts is a logical flaw. Evolutionists here would have to show me how biological research is done on these rocks that demonstrates evolution.

Sigh. I don't know why I bother, but then...

Byers, you did not get my last analogy, so I'll try again. If biology cannot be studied from the perspectives of geology, chemistry etc, then tell me why
- you die if your core temperature drops too low
- an MRI scan can be used to study your inner organs
- we accept indirect means of detecting pathogens, like serology
- EEG is used to declare someone braindead
- metabolites in urine can be used to detect disease
- pharmaceuticals work

I really do not think you get the implications of what you're saying, because that would mean all of medicine is total quack. If it was true, we would not be able to tell objectively who is ill and who is not, and we would not have the faintest idea what causes disease. The most consistent of your superstitious likes admits this; they reject medicine and still claims that bad spirits and God's punishment is the root cause of all disease! At least these people are honest in their denial.

If you try really hard to think through the examples above, you might get it. I have little hope though.

To give you a helping hint; WHAT is an MRI actually measuring?

OJ: But your honor, since fingerprints aren't really fingers then DNA doesn't count either. So you see, you have to throw out all of the evidence. BEsides, I don't understand any of the technical stuff anyway. You have to prove to me that it's real. I can't see DNA, so how can you use it to convict me? I know that there are real experts in the field, but if I don't agree with them you can't use them against me either.

Robert Byers said: Creationists quarrel with the claims of evidence made by evolutionists but I say there is a bigger flaw in all this.

Evolutionists here would have to show me how biological research is done on these rocks that demonstrates evolution.

bbennett1968 said: What exactly do you (Robert Byers) imagine you're achieving in your inane maunderings on this site?

apokryltaros said:

bbennett1968 said: What exactly do you (Robert Byers) imagine you're achieving in your inane maunderings on this site?

Robert Byers imagines that his verbal diarrhea magically makes him smarter than everyone here.

Dave Luckett said: Fossils are the relicts of living things - even Byers admits that. "Casts", he says. So tell me, Byers, how can they not contain information about the living things themselves? And why should this information from fossils not be compared with information from other fossils? And where this comparison demonstrates morphological change, why should this be denied? I know why you deny it, Byers. It's because you're a religious loon, and therefore by definition not rational. But why should a rational person deny it?

Niltava said: Sigh. I don't know why I bother, but then... Byers, you did not get my last analogy, so I'll try again. If biology cannot be studied from the perspectives of geology, chemistry etc, then tell me why - you die if your core temperature drops too low - an MRI scan can be used to study your inner organs - we accept indirect means of detecting pathogens, like serology - EEG is used to declare someone braindead - metabolites in urine can be used to detect disease - pharmaceuticals work I really do not think you get the implications of what you're saying, because that would mean all of medicine is total quack. If it was true, we would not be able to tell objectively who is ill and who is not, and we would not have the faintest idea what causes disease. The most consistent of your superstitious likes admits this; they reject medicine and still claims that bad spirits and God's punishment is the root cause of all disease! At least these people are honest in their denial. If you try really hard to think through the examples above, you might get it. I have little hope though. To give you a helping hint; WHAT is an MRI actually measuring?

So, Byers, what you're actually complaining about is that the geological theory is used to relatively date the fossils found in the sedimentary rock, and this dating is then used to demonstrate slow change in morphology over time in the lifeforms that left the fossils.

Why do you think that dating rocks isn't the province of geology, Byers? Because it's actually the province of the Bible? You think?

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said: Fossils are the relicts of living things - even Byers admits that. "Casts", he says. So tell me, Byers, how can they not contain information about the living things themselves? And why should this information from fossils not be compared with information from other fossils? And where this comparison demonstrates morphological change, why should this be denied? I know why you deny it, Byers. It's because you're a religious loon, and therefore by definition not rational. But why should a rational person deny it?

Bingo. The comparison is not showing morphological change as a result of evolution. In fact its not showing change but only shows two different types of creatures. Thats all that is shown. Only the geological sequence is being used here to prove evolutionary change. Without the geology there is no biological conclusion. Therefore its not a conclusion from biological research but rather from geological research or rather presumptions.

Robert Byers said:

Niltava said: Sigh. I don't know why I bother, but then... Byers, you did not get my last analogy, so I'll try again. If biology cannot be studied from the perspectives of geology, chemistry etc, then tell me why - you die if your core temperature drops too low - an MRI scan can be used to study your inner organs - we accept indirect means of detecting pathogens, like serology - EEG is used to declare someone braindead - metabolites in urine can be used to detect disease - pharmaceuticals work I really do not think you get the implications of what you're saying, because that would mean all of medicine is total quack. If it was true, we would not be able to tell objectively who is ill and who is not, and we would not have the faintest idea what causes disease. The most consistent of your superstitious likes admits this; they reject medicine and still claims that bad spirits and God's punishment is the root cause of all disease! At least these people are honest in their denial. If you try really hard to think through the examples above, you might get it. I have little hope though. To give you a helping hint; WHAT is an MRI actually measuring?

Medicine is medicine. The claim evolutionism makes is that biological origins can be discovered by looking at fossils. They call this biological investigation. I say there is no biology going on and this is a good point for creationbists to make to the public. They are not doing biology in determining these biological conclusions but are only connecting fossils they say are from different time periods. This sequence in time is the only evidence that evolution has occurred . The use of fossils is not the use of biological research. No biology going on. A logical flaw in the equation .

Byers, still going to show us all the fossils used within the study of evo-devo?

Didn't think so.

Still working on explaining why YECs/Flood geologists are virtually absent in geology/palentology?

Didn't think so.

Oh, still working on giving us a long detailed criticism of the Gordon Glover and Glenn Morton material???

Yea, didn't think so.

Dave Luckett said: So, Byers, what you're actually complaining about is that the geological theory is used to relatively date the fossils found in the sedimentary rock, and this dating is then used to demonstrate slow change in morphology over time in the lifeforms that left the fossils. Why do you think that dating rocks isn't the province of geology, Byers? Because it's actually the province of the Bible? You think?

Robert,

Your argument seems to be that paleontology is not biology so the evidence should not be considered. Let's forget for a minute that the modern theory of evolution is also based on evidence form biogeography, biochemistry, genetics, population genetics, developmental biology and many other fields. Consider this: the bible is not geology; the bible is not biology; the bible is not science. So, if the bible is the only reason you are a YEC, you have to stop being a YEC. If the bible is the only reason you refuse to believe in evolution, you have to start believing in it. That's your own logic Robert. If you don't like it, quit using it.

Tenncrain said: Byers, still going to show us all the fossils used within the study of evo-devo? Didn't think so. Still working on explaining why YECs/Flood geologists are virtually absent in geology/palentology? Didn't think so. Oh, still working on giving us a long detailed criticism of the Gordon Glover and Glenn Morton material??? Yea, didn't think so.

Yep, the OJ defense can extend in many directions:

Astronomy is not physics or chemistry, so what we see through telescopes can't tell us anything about the objects we see--how big they are, how far away, how hot, how old, what they're made of, or anything! Telescopes just help us see things, so all we know is what they LOOK like.

And, hey, that's true of microscopes, too... and..and Xray machines... and..WOW! police radar!

So you see, your honor...

Does it really not occur to this guy that anything impacted by biological processes can be used as evidence in biological research?

And of course the same principle applies to any branch of science; the different branches are not studying different universes, they're studying different aspects of the same universe. Yet his remarks give the impression that he thinks biology and geology are about totally different worlds.

Henry J said: ...he thinks biology and geology are about totally different worlds.

Byers, again, you're too lazy to really care and think when others provide you with an argument. So I'll provide you with an answer then.

"Medicine is medicine" you say? And what is it then? It is a field that integrates all sciences (yes, that's right!); radiology envelops physics, pathology envelops biology and chemistry, physiology, anatomy and genetics are biological fields, orthopedics is biological and physical, environmental medicine combines geology, mathematics, physics, biology and chemistry, and so on and on and on. You may think different fields of science cannot be integrated, but clearly it can.

Now, the MRI. An MRI makes PHYSICAL measurements of the body. In simple words (I doubt you would like the complicated version) it measures PHYSICAL properties of water molecules. We then use this PHYSICAL investigation to answer our questions about the BIOLOGY of the patient (brain physiology is biology, patophysiology is biology, a brain tumor is biology). Now, if this works, WHAT IS THE **** PROBLEM about using a geological investigation to tell us anything about biology?! Noone here but you thinks this is a problem.

I suggest you approach the hospitals around you and present to them your sublime insight and logic; I think they will be quite happy they have no reasons to use MRI any longer; after all, they cunk out quite a bit of the budget....

Niltava said: Byers, again, you're too lazy to really care and think when others provide you with an argument. So I'll provide you with an answer then. "Medicine is medicine" you say? And what is it then? It is a field that integrates all sciences (yes, that's right!); radiology envelops physics, pathology envelops biology and chemistry, physiology, anatomy and genetics are biological fields, orthopedics is biological and physical, environmental medicine combines geology, mathematics, physics, biology and chemistry, and so on and on and on. You may think different fields of science cannot be integrated, but clearly it can. Now, the MRI. An MRI makes PHYSICAL measurements of the body. In simple words (I doubt you would like the complicated version) it measures PHYSICAL properties of water molecules. We then use this PHYSICAL investigation to answer our questions about the BIOLOGY of the patient (brain physiology is biology, patophysiology is biology, a brain tumor is biology). Now, if this works, WHAT IS THE **** PROBLEM about using a geological investigation to tell us anything about biology?! Noone here but you thinks this is a problem. I suggest you approach the hospitals around you and present to them your sublime insight and logic; I think they will be quite happy they have no reasons to use MRI any longer; after all, they cunk out quite a bit of the budget....

SO then you are not a YEC anymore?

Byers,

The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils.

This has been explained to you many times before.

Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Robert Byers said: The thought exercise to show this IS that if the fossils were found in the same time strata NO evolutionary progression would be invoked for the origin of the differences in the fossils. [bolding added]

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Now really, you are contradicting yourself Byers.

You say it's fine to use geology now? Then i do not see the problem, except from the fact that you do not like when someone calls it a biological investigation. Call it something else then, it's just a game of words, nomenclature nitpicking. You can call it a geological investigation if you want, but it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE when assessing the evidence, which is EXACTLY what I've been trying to point out to you.

What makes me absolutely flabbergasted is that you in one sentence say it's ok to use geology to make a biological case, and in another blabber incoherently about a great error??? Which error? There is no error except possibly a naming error. You could call an MRI scan "A big magically force-field creating tube" if you'd like, it would still produce great images that pinpoint tumors.

Your statement that fossils in the "wrong" strata would be evidence AGAINST evolution is exactly why evolutionary theory is a scientific theory; it is potentially falsifiable. Creationism is not, hence it is no science.

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Malcolm says "Robert, you are WRONG."

Robert says, "Malcolm, are you saying I make a persuasive case?"

Ben says, "Robert, you are an idiot."

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The thought exercise to show this IS that if the fossils were found in the same time strata NO evolutionary progression would be invoked for the origin of the differences in the fossils. [bolding added]

Dear Robert, This statement is absolutely correct. If the fossils were found in the "same time strata" then no evolutionary progression could be claimed. It's the old "Pre-Cambrian Rabbit" argument. But this isn't a "thought" experiment. This is a real actual experiment. This real experiment has been done tens of thousands of times. The fossils of interest have always been found in different strata. The fossils of interest have never been found in the same strata. In fact, the fossils of interest have always been found in different strata in the same order in the geologic column. No "Pre-Cambrian Rabbit" has ever been found. So, the first part of your logical implication is false. It is not true. Therefore your logical implication fails, and you cannot claim the consequent to be true. This appears to be a common tactic with creationists, and authoritarian denialists of all stripes. I see it in the news a lot. Even letters to the editor. They make the statement, "Let's do a thought experiment. Everyone agrees that if A is true, then B is true. Therefore, B is true." The denialist doesn't even bother to try to prove or even claim whether "A" is true or false. They simply claim the implication is true. Because the entire implication is true, they therefore conclude that the consequent is true. This seems to be more than simply "assuming the consequent". It's like they think that, if they make a statement that is true, then one must conclude that all of its parts are true as well. It's just mind bogglingly idiotic. And people do it all the time.

It's that fractured inability to see the point, that purblind doltishness of it that makes it almost endearing.

Yes, Byers, dating rocks is a "geological thing". Good to have you admit it. And these dates apply also to the fossils that are in the rocks. And the morphology of those fossils changes according to the dates of the rocks they're found in, as dated by geology.

The closer we come to the present, as determined by geology, the more the fossils generally resemble the life forms we know. Which is what evolution says should happen, and creationism says shouldn't happen. So this is evidence for evolution, and against creationism.

Do go away, you silly little man.

Niltava said: Now really, you are contradicting yourself Byers. You say it's fine to use geology now? Then i do not see the problem, except from the fact that you do not like when someone calls it a biological investigation. Call it something else then, it's just a game of words, nomenclature nitpicking. You can call it a geological investigation if you want, but it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE when assessing the evidence, which is EXACTLY what I've been trying to point out to you. What makes me absolutely flabbergasted is that you in one sentence say it's ok to use geology to make a biological case, and in another blabber incoherently about a great error??? Which error? There is no error except possibly a naming error. You could call an MRI scan "A big magically force-field creating tube" if you'd like, it would still produce great images that pinpoint tumors. Your statement that fossils in the "wrong" strata would be evidence AGAINST evolution is exactly why evolutionary theory is a scientific theory; it is potentially falsifiable. Creationism is not, hence it is no science.

No, it does not matter at all. It is no less a evidence for evolution. Only you here thinks so.

Explain to me WHY it is no evidence, NOT just saying it is not a biological investigation, tell me exactly why it is wrong to use a geological investigation. Don't whine and say "you can't do that" cause we think we can. Tellu us why we can't use it as evidence. Please do it coherently.

It would give you more credibility if you gave an answer to my MRI analogy. How is it possible to use a nonbiological investigation to study biological aspects? You think it is not possible because to you, life is some special, supernatural phenomenon that cannot be studied in the same way as all other things. And you, as many have pointed out, are wrong.

Fossils in the same strata can be used to illustrate the nested hierarchy that was present in that time period. IMO that would be part of the relevant evidence.

Anyway, fossils are part of the evidence. Funny how science deniers go around saying that this or that part of the evidence doesn't by itself prove the entire theory (or misspelled words to that effect). Well duh - of course one piece of evidence doesn't prove everything all at once; the reason a theory is accepted is because of the overall patterns formed by all the relevant evidence that has been examined.

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Why say this now? Are you admitting I make a persuasive case on this point of fossils? This is the conversation. The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution. In fact i think it is more important then any onther single point or all other points combined. I believe the evolution group (I forget the name but run by MS Scott) had the slogan "The fossils say so". I read about in on uncommon descent and folks were asked to give our ideas for what they should say and much fun was had. Evolution needs fossil evidence for its great claims as otherwise its mostly a line of reasoning as darwin would of admitted.

Tenncrain said: It's been explained countless times to you that fossils are only one of *multiple* lines of independent evidence for evolution.

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Why say this now? Are you admitting I make a persuasive case on this point of fossils? This is the conversation. The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution. In fact i think it is more important then any onther single point or all other points combined. I believe the evolution group (I forget the name but run by MS Scott) had the slogan "The fossils say so". I read about in on uncommon descent and folks were asked to give our ideas for what they should say and much fun was had. Evolution needs fossil evidence for its great claims as otherwise its mostly a line of reasoning as darwin would of admitted.

And you want to teach "weaknesses" of evolution, but you can't even list any for your own "theory".

Should we do it for you?

Tenncrain said: Actually, fossils were hardly on the figurative radar screen 150 years ago as fossils were so rare then; Darwin and Alfred Wallace mainly used evidence other than fossils like bio-geography and comparative anatomy of living species. A century and a half ago, fossils were often considered as much of a challenge for evolution as supporting evolution.

John said:

Tenncrain said: Actually, fossils were hardly on the figurative radar screen 150 years ago as fossils were so rare then; Darwin and Alfred Wallace mainly used evidence other than fossils like bio-geography and comparative anatomy of living species. A century and a half ago, fossils were often considered as much of a challenge for evolution as supporting evolution.

Just a couple of corrections should be noted, Tennecrain. Darwin found the fossil record unreliable since there were a lot of "missing links" for the vertebrate paleontological record, especially with regard to human evolution, though he did recognize in "On the Origin of Species", and especially, in "The Descent of Man", that comparative anatomy and behavior implied a strong degree of kinship between humans and the other Great Apes. There was also the problem of the "Cambrian Explosion", in which metazoan life seemed to have appeared suddently, out of thin ear, in the Cambrian strata (More extensive exploration of late Proterozoic Era rock formations, especially those in the Vendian Period which contain the Ediacaran Fauna, demonstrate that metazoan evolution did occur long before the Cambrian Period; various hypotheses, including a rapid increase in Earth's atmospheric oxygen, have been proposed explaining why metazoan diversification in the world's oceans started to take off in the Cambrian, with a second, much larger, pulse of metazoan diversification recently recognized for the subsequent Ordovician Period; both the Cambrian and the Ordovician Periods comprise the Early Paleozoic Era, which followed the Proterozoic Era.

Just Bob said: And you want to teach "weaknesses" of evolution, but you can't even list any for your own "theory".

Just Bob said: Should we do it for you?

Robert,

You are wrong. Paleontology is not geology, it is the study of ancient life. It is a field of biology. If you claim that it is not, you are lying. Stop doing that. You are giving your god a bad name. Why are you so afraid of paleontology? What is so awful about fossils that you can't even admit that they are evidence? Oh, that's right, they completely disprove all of your YEC nonsense and are completely consistent with evolution. You must deny all of the evidence, preferably by renaming it and saying it doesn't really count.

Here is a news flash for you Robert, no one is being fooled by your childish word games, Everyone can see that you are just being a parrot. Someone told you that religion was not science, so you are trying to play the same game by claiming that fossils are not biology. The difference is that they were right and you are wrong. You can say it a thousand times, and probably will, but that still don't make it right. But keep it up. Any rational person will see that you represent the wrong side of the argument.

And of course, as many have pointed out, fossils are only one line of independent evidence for evolution. At this point, probably not even the most important type of evidence. Just one more reason why you should shut your mouth and quit spewing ignorance. You have no explanation for the genetic evidence or the developmental evidence or anything else. All you have is word games and denialism.

Now, for the last time, religion is not science. YEC is dead, deal with it.

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Why say this now? Are you admitting I make a persuasive case on this point of fossils? This is the conversation. The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution. In fact i think it is more important then any onther single point or all other points combined. I believe the evolution group (I forget the name but run by MS Scott) had the slogan "The fossils say so". I read about in on uncommon descent and folks were asked to give our ideas for what they should say and much fun was had. Evolution needs fossil evidence for its great claims as otherwise its mostly a line of reasoning as darwin would of admitted.

The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution.

Niltava said: No, it does not matter at all. It is no less a evidence for evolution. Only you here thinks so. Explain to me WHY it is no evidence, NOT just saying it is not a biological investigation, tell me exactly why it is wrong to use a geological investigation. Don't whine and say "you can't do that" cause we think we can. Tellu us why we can't use it as evidence. Please do it coherently.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Why say this now? Are you admitting I make a persuasive case on this point of fossils? This is the conversation. The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution. In fact i think it is more important then any onther single point or all other points combined. I believe the evolution group (I forget the name but run by MS Scott) had the slogan "The fossils say so". I read about in on uncommon descent and folks were asked to give our ideas for what they should say and much fun was had. Evolution needs fossil evidence for its great claims as otherwise its mostly a line of reasoning as darwin would of admitted.

It's been explained countless times to you that fossils are only one of *multiple* lines of independent evidence for evolution. Actually, fossils were hardly on the figurative radar screen 150 years ago as fossils were so rare then; Darwin and Alfred Wallace mainly used evidence other than fossils like bio-geography and comparative anatomy of living species. A century and a half ago, fossils were often considered as much of a challenge for evolution as supporting evolution. Today there are far more fossils, but we also have molecular genetics and more recently the revolutionary field of evo-devo. If anything, genetics and evo-devo are superior to fossils in many ways. Genetics sometimes even helps find missing fossils (about the 7min 40sec mark). IIRC, the Tiktaalik fossils in northern Canada were discovered with partial help from genetics of living species. Byers, I and others were once YECs like you. But if us ex-YECs can see the light, maybe so can you. We came to understand (even if painfully) that YEC views are not only pseudo-science, they are terrible theology as well.

Let's keep it real simple: Why are marks made by living things, including the actual fossilized BONES of living things, not "evidence" about living things?

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Why say this now? Are you admitting I make a persuasive case on this point of fossils? This is the conversation. The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution. In fact i think it is more important then any onther single point or all other points combined. I believe the evolution group (I forget the name but run by MS Scott) had the slogan "The fossils say so". I read about in on uncommon descent and folks were asked to give our ideas for what they should say and much fun was had. Evolution needs fossil evidence for its great claims as otherwise its mostly a line of reasoning as darwin would of admitted.

If anything, genetics and evo-devo are superior to fossils in many ways. Genetics sometimes even helps find missing fossils (click here, about the 7min 40sec mark). IIRC, the Tiktaalik fossils in northern Canada were discovered with partial help from genetics of living species. Byers, I and others were once YECs like you. But if us ex-YECs can see the light, maybe so can you. We came to understand (even if painfully) that YEC views are not only pseudo-science, they are terrible theology as well.

Fine anout multiple lines of evidence. yet fossils is a major point always.

anyways i'm saying fossils evidence is not evidence the result of biological investigation despite being thought so. First things first.

Robert Byers said: I'm not saying it isn't evidence. I'm saying its not evidence the result of biological investigation yet its presented and thought to be so by evolutionists. A logical flaw. in thinking.

Robert Byers said: Fine anout multiple lines of evidence. yet fossils is a major point always. anyways i'm saying fossils evidence is not evidence the result of biological investigation despite being thought so. First things first.

Robert Byers said:

Niltava said: No, it does not matter at all. It is no less a evidence for evolution. Only you here thinks so. Explain to me WHY it is no evidence, NOT just saying it is not a biological investigation, tell me exactly why it is wrong to use a geological investigation. Don't whine and say "you can't do that" cause we think we can. Tellu us why we can't use it as evidence. Please do it coherently.

I'm not saying it isn't evidence. I'm saying its not evidence the result of biological investigation yet its presented and thought to be so by evolutionists. A logical flaw. in thinking.

Just Bob said: Let's keep it real simple: Why are marks made by living things, including the actual fossilized BONES of living things, not "evidence" about living things?

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Why say this now? Are you admitting I make a persuasive case on this point of fossils? This is the conversation. The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution. In fact i think it is more important then any onther single point or all other points combined. I believe the evolution group (I forget the name but run by MS Scott) had the slogan "The fossils say so". I read about in on uncommon descent and folks were asked to give our ideas for what they should say and much fun was had. Evolution needs fossil evidence for its great claims as otherwise its mostly a line of reasoning as darwin would of admitted.

If anything, genetics and evo-devo are superior to fossils in many ways. Genetics sometimes even helps find missing fossils (click here, about the 7min 40sec mark). IIRC, the Tiktaalik fossils in northern Canada were discovered with partial help from genetics of living species. Byers, I and others were once YECs like you. But if us ex-YECs can see the light, maybe so can you. We came to understand (even if painfully) that YEC views are not only pseudo-science, they are terrible theology as well.

Fine anout multiple lines of evidence. yet fossils is a major point always.

Again, Darwin and Wallace mainly used evidence like bio-geography, behavior [BTW John, thanks for your comments] and comparative anatomy of living species. They did not rely much on fossils as has been explained countless times (although to be sure, Archaeopteryx was discovered a few years after Origin of Species was published). Even today, as good as fossils are, they are in some ways second fiddle as evidence. For the sake of debate, let's say nature always destroys the remains of living things and thus there are no such things as fossils. Other lines of evidence would still be strong for evolution (bio-geography, genetics/DNA, comparative anatomy). That's what we mean by *independent* evidence.

anyways i'm saying fossils evidence is not evidence the result of biological investigation despite being thought so. First things first.

You still refuse to answer where all the fossils are within evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). For that matter, where are all the fossils within bio-geography? Oh, again, why are YECs/"Flood geologists" with advanced training in geology/paleontology virtually nonexistent?

apokryltaros said:

Robert Byers said:

Niltava said: No, it does not matter at all. It is no less a evidence for evolution. Only you here thinks so. Explain to me WHY it is no evidence, NOT just saying it is not a biological investigation, tell me exactly why it is wrong to use a geological investigation. Don't whine and say "you can't do that" cause we think we can. Tellu us why we can't use it as evidence. Please do it coherently.

I'm not saying it isn't evidence. I'm saying its not evidence the result of biological investigation yet its presented and thought to be so by evolutionists. A logical flaw. in thinking.

Then how come you can not explain to us how Young Earth Creationism can explain biological investigation or even fossils, let alone why can't you explain to us how Young Earth Creationism is better than Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, or even why you can't explain to us why Young Earth Creationism is even supposed to be a science?

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Let's keep it real simple: Why are marks made by living things, including the actual fossilized BONES of living things, not "evidence" about living things?

There are not evidence of processes. They are snapshots of a moment in time. its not about evidence but about whether fossil dot connecting is biological investigative methodology. i say its not and its been a error to think it is. it can be evidence but don't claim its biological evidence from the principals of biological research.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said: Byers, The vast majority of the evidence for the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. This has been explained to you many times before. Or, to put it more simply for you, you are wrong.

Why say this now? Are you admitting I make a persuasive case on this point of fossils? This is the conversation. The fossil record is a star or (also starring) in the credits for evolution. In fact i think it is more important then any onther single point or all other points combined. I believe the evolution group (I forget the name but run by MS Scott) had the slogan "The fossils say so". I read about in on uncommon descent and folks were asked to give our ideas for what they should say and much fun was had. Evolution needs fossil evidence for its great claims as otherwise its mostly a line of reasoning as darwin would of admitted.

If anything, genetics and evo-devo are superior to fossils in many ways. Genetics sometimes even helps find missing fossils (click here, about the 7min 40sec mark). IIRC, the Tiktaalik fossils in northern Canada were discovered with partial help from genetics of living species. Byers, I and others were once YECs like you. But if us ex-YECs can see the light, maybe so can you. We came to understand (even if painfully) that YEC views are not only pseudo-science, they are terrible theology as well.

Fine anout multiple lines of evidence. yet fossils is a major point always.

Again, Darwin and Wallace mainly used evidence like bio-geography, behavior [BTW John, thanks for your comments] and comparative anatomy of living species. They did not rely much on fossils as has been explained countless times (although to be sure, Archaeopteryx was discovered a few years after Origin of Species was published). Even today, as good as fossils are, they are in some ways second fiddle as evidence. For the sake of debate, let's say nature always destroys the remains of living things and thus there are no such things as fossils. Other lines of evidence would still be strong for evolution (bio-geography, genetics/DNA, comparative anatomy). That's what we mean by *independent* evidence.

anyways i'm saying fossils evidence is not evidence the result of biological investigation despite being thought so. First things first.

You still refuse to answer where all the fossils are within evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). For that matter, where are all the fossils within bio-geography? Oh, again, why are YECs/"Flood geologists" with advanced training in geology/paleontology virtually nonexistent?

Evolutionism presents fossils as more then second fiddle unless second fiddle is very important. if your agreeing that fossils ain't evidence for evolution BY biological investigation then we can agree. Biological processes conclusions must in the main be the result of biological investigation. Fossils or address are not this or even genetics.

Robert Byers, the Lying Coward For Jesus said:

apokryltaros said:

Robert Byers said:

Niltava said: No, it does not matter at all. It is no less a evidence for evolution. Only you here thinks so. Explain to me WHY it is no evidence, NOT just saying it is not a biological investigation, tell me exactly why it is wrong to use a geological investigation. Don't whine and say "you can't do that" cause we think we can. Tellu us why we can't use it as evidence. Please do it coherently.

I'm not saying it isn't evidence. I'm saying its not evidence the result of biological investigation yet its presented and thought to be so by evolutionists. A logical flaw. in thinking.

Then how come you can not explain to us how Young Earth Creationism can explain biological investigation or even fossils, let alone why can't you explain to us how Young Earth Creationism is better than Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, or even why you can't explain to us why Young Earth Creationism is even supposed to be a science?

off thread and beside the point of the conversation here.

DS said: (Robert Byers') personal opinions are worthless. You are denigrating an entire field of research with your ignorant pronouncements. Either give some reason why the remains of living creatures are not evidence of the history of life on earth or STFU already.

Robert Byers said: Evolutionism presents fossils as more then second fiddle unless second fiddle is very important. if your agreeing that fossils ain't evidence for evolution BY biological investigation then we can agree. Biological processes conclusions must in the main be the result of biological investigation. Fossils or address are not this or even genetics.

Robert Byers said: There are not evidence of processes.

DS said: Evolutionism sometimes presents fossils as more then second fiddle sometimes not but even second fiddle can be very important. if your agreeing that fossils are evidence for evolution BY biological investigation then we can agree. Biological processes conclusions are in the main the result of biological investigation. Fossils or address are this and even genetics.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: There are not evidence of processes.

I don't know why I bother, but... We have found dinosaur trackways, including tracks of predators apparently following herbivores. Why isn't that evidence of the simple biological PROCESS of walking, and hunting? We have found dinosaurs of the same species in various stages of life, from still in the egg, through newborn, youth and fully mature. Why isn't that evidence of the biological PROCESSES of birth, growth, and aging? Do we have to observe a human through his whole life to study those things, or can we study the "biological processes" by observing different individuals at various life stages?

Evolutionism presents fossils as more then second fiddle unless second fiddle is very important.

if your agreeing that fossils ain’t evidence for evolution BY biological investigation then we can agree.