[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[EricTheBaptist]

How do we know these bones that are 'supposed' ancestors are true? According to someone who studies Biology and doesn't believe in God Evolutionists make assumptions based off of these bone fossils and can never prove that they are 100% related.

 

[zeke]

How do we know these bones that are 'supposed' ancestors are true? According to someone who studies Biology and doesn't believe in God Evolutionists make assumptions based off of these bone fossils and can never prove that they are 100% related.

Henry Gee (Darwinist) says it quite well - we cannot take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage. This notion is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested via the scientific method. Such assertions are bedtime stories that come under the long list of Darwinian mythology - mythology passed off as science. The fossil record is Darwinisms greatest disappointment.

"...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. ...To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." ~ Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time​

 

[lordkalvan]

How do we know these bones that are 'supposed' ancestors are true?

We look at more than just bones.

According to someone who studies Biology and doesn't believe in God Evolutionists make assumptions based off of these bone fossils and can never prove that they are 100% related.

As far as I am aware, no evolutionary scientist would propose that the fossil evidence from organism X shows that it is in a direct line of descent leading to or from organism Y, but rather that transitional features in that fossil indicate that it is an intermediary form which may be related only indirectly to currently existing organisms.

 

[lordkalvan]

Henry Gee (Darwinist) says it quite well - we cannot take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage. This notion is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested via the scientific method. Such assertions are bedtime stories that come under the long list of Darwinian mythology - mythology passed off as science. The fossil record is Darwinisms greatest disappointment.

"...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. ...To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." ~ Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time​

You seem content to continue to quote mine scientists to misrepresent the intent of what they argue for and from. Can you tell us where you sourced this quote from? Can you tell us what the ellipses in your quote exclude? Can you tell us what Henry Gee actually concludes from fossil evidence? I can:

Now, of course, elsewhere in the same book I said quite unequivocally that evolution is a fact: “If it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin,” I wrote on p5, going on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. There is no question that evolution is true, and that we have ancestors, and an ancestry. The very existence of the fossil record is proof enough of this. What is in question is the methods that evolutionary biologists often use to recover that ancestry, methods that are more narrative than scientific. My argument was with some aspects of evolutionary biology and the way it is played out in the media, not with evolution itself.

Source: http://occamstypewriter.org/cromercrox/2011/03/02/creationism/

He also observes that:

The sad thing is that no matter how hard I fight, the creationists will still take quotes out of context, because that’s the way they do what they call ‘science’. Like all pseudoscientists and woo-merchants, they don’t investigate anything systematically, just pick out the things they like and discard anything else – even flat statements to the contrary.

Source: as above.

 

[Barbarian]

Henry Gee (Darwinist) says it quite well - we cannot take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage. This notion is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested via the scientific method.

Recently, someone tested it. A bit of heme (fraction of hemoglobin molecules) was found in the bones of a T. rex. When tested, it was found to be most like that of birds, rather than like other reptiles. Which supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Likewise collagen supports this theory:
The seven collagen types obtained from the bone fragments, compared to collagen data from living birds (specifically, a chicken), suggest that older theropods and birds are closely related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested positive for beta keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests. Particularly well-preserved (and legitimate) fossils of feathered dinosaurs were discovered during the 1990s and 2000s.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathered_dinosaurs.htm

Such assertions are bedtime stories that come under the long list of Darwinian mythology - mythology passed off as science.

You've been taken advantage of, I'm afraid. It's the evidence above, and much more, such as the discovery that dinos do have a wishbone after all, bird lungs in a theropod dinosaur, feather knobs on the upper limbs of velociraptors, haversian canals in dinosaur bone, and many other bits of evidence for the ancestry of birds as dinosaurs.

The fossil record is Darwinisms greatest disappointment.

Surprise. Libraries are free; go learn about it.

"...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent.

But we can find fossils in which a series shows less difference between adjecent specimens than is found within many species today. Would you like to see some of that?

Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. ...

Wrong again. All of that evidence above, appeared after it was theorized that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And as you see, it's compelling evidence. But even more compelling is the fact that we don't see such evidence between groups that are not predicted to be closely related.

Let's try a little test; you pick any two major groups of organisms said to be closely related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you. Then I'll pick two that are not said to be closely related, and you see if you can find a transitional. Want to try?

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested

See above. Just a few of the numerous tests of the theory that have been validated. Gee, BTW, is a writer, but is not a scientist. And as you see, he's unaware of a vast amount of evidence.

 

[zeke]

As far as I am aware, no evolutionary scientist would propose that the fossil evidence from organism X shows that it is in a direct line of descent leading to or from organism Y, but rather that transitional features in that fossil indicate that it is an intermediary form which may be related only indirectly to currently existing organisms.

You may want to research the Darwinian, "horse sequence" hoax. One of many.

 

[zeke]

Let's try a little test; you pick any two major groups of organisms said to be closely related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you.

Lol -are you claiming you can take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage? Your boasting has put you in way over your head. Please provide your fossil lineage from the alleged common ancestor of man and chimp and trace it back to man. Be careful - you are on the slippery slope to fallacious reasoning. But that has never stopped you before - has it? ;)

 

[zeke]

You seem content to continue to quote mine scientists to misrepresent the intent of what they argue for and from.

I misrepresent no one my friend. I correctly noted that Henry Gee was a Darwinist. That indicates he believes via faith in the many myths of Darwinism. The quote I provided accurately states his intent quite well - and in context. He correctly states that for one to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. I agree with Gee. Do you not agree with his statement regarding deep-time?

For the record - Barbarian thinks he can do what Gee says cannot be done - scientifically. Can you help the Barbarian in his folly?

 

[Barbarian]

You may want to research the Darwinian, "horse sequence" hoax. One of many.

Show us that one.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Let's try a little test; you pick any two major groups of organisms said to be closely related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you.

(Zeke picks man and chimps)

Sure:

Austrolopithecines. Transitional between man and chimps in:
Dentition
Hands
Spine
Hips
Skull
Feet

(pick one if you want to see how we know)

Try again. The second part of the challenge was for you to find such a transitional between two major groups not said to be evolutionarily connected. When do you think you can do that?

 

[Barbarian]

The sad thing is that no matter how hard I fight, the creationists will still take quotes out of context, because that’s the way they do what they call ‘science’. Like all pseudoscientists and woo-merchants, they don’t investigate anything systematically, just pick out the things they like and discard anything else – even flat statements to the contrary.

This is the motivation behind quote-mining. It is the recognition that there is no evidence for creationism, and the hope that perhaps by carefully editing the words of scientists, it can be made to appear that they don't agree with evolution.

There's no way to trick one's self out of reality, although some creationists act as though it were possible.

 

[zeke]

Austrolopithecines.

Australopithecines is a dead-end ape line. You boasted you could take a line of fossils and prove they represent a lineage? Where is your lineage? Gee is quite clear - "to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis." You obviously fail to understand what Gee is saying but that is not surprising. You have once again failed to do what you boasted you could do - that is three strikes for you mate. You're out.

 

[zeke]

The second part of the challenge was for you to find such a transitional between two major groups not said to be evolutionarily connected. When do you think you can do that?

You will first have to prove there are 'transitionals' between major classes of organisms. Can do you that via the scientific method - without your typical argumentum ad ignorantiam?

It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today. ~ Michael Denton (evolutionist)​

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that Australopithecines are transitional between humans and apes)

Australopithecines is a dead-end ape line.

In the sense that humans are. But they are, as you see, transitional between humans and apes.

You boasted you could take a line of fossils and prove they represent a lineage?

I said that you could pick any two major groups you like, and I'd see if I could find a transitional between them. As you see, Australopithecines are by definition, transitional between the two groups.

Notice that the Australopithecine skull is precisely transitional.

Here's the hips of each, and shows why we know it wasn't just an ape:

The Australopithecine pelvis is transitional between those of chimps and humans. Notice the angle of the femur, making humans and Australopithecines slightly knock-kneed. That allows an efficient bipedal walking stance.

Take a look at the feet of each:

The Australopithecines were much more like humans in feet, because they were bipedal, but the big toe is more separated, and the phalanges are slightly curved, although not as much as in apes.

Try again? And now, you need to show us any two groups not said to be closely related, which has such transitionals. You seem to be really sure that you're right, so I'm hoping you won't bail out, as most creationists do at this point. Let's see what you've got.

Oh, and Michael Denton is an IDer. Or used to be. In his latest book, Nature's Destiny, he seems to have rejected his earlier quotes...

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

 

[Barbarian]

And the hands. Note again, Australopithecines are transitional between humans and apes. They have slightly curved digits, but not as much as apes. They have the "3-point chuck" grip ability found otherwise only in humans, but they lack a precise thumb-to-middle finger grip humans have. Again, transitional.

 

[Barbarian]

And the dental arcades of chimps, Australopithecines, and humans.

Again, demonstrably transitional.

There's more. Do you need more? Or do you want to try again?

 

[zeke]

(Barbarian notes that Australopithecines are transitional between humans and apes)

Yawn.

Australopithecines is a dead-end ape line that was designed to be similar to humans because both species have the same common designer. And as Stephen Gould correctly stated - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. You are looking weaker - maybe you need to stop digging - yes?

Gee said you can't "take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage". Why - because it "is not a scientific hypothesis." You boasted that you could do what Gee says can't be done. You have failed to do what you boasted you could do. You look rather anemic.

 

[zeke]

And the dental arcades of chimps, Australopithecines, and humans.

Again, demonstrably transitional.

Yawn...where's your promised lineage - did you misplace it again? You do understand that a dental arcade is not a lineage - no? A common designer designed chimps, Australopithecines, and humans---you have failed but your gave it your best. Is that about it?

Ask Charlie - knows the truth...now...

 

[Barbarian]

Yawn...where's your promised lineage

That was just your attempt to evade the question. I suggested you name me two major groups, and I'd see if I could find a transitional. As you see, I gave you one. Australopithecines are transitional between chimps and humans, because they are intermediate in structure between the two.

My challenge to you now, is to show any two major groups that are not said to be evolutionarily connected, that have the same sort of transitionals.

You do understand that a dental arcade is not a lineage - no?

It is, as you learned, a transitional feature. Now it's up to you to explain why groups that are said to be related have these transitional organisms, but groups not found to be related don't have them.

A common designer designed chimps, Australopithecines, and humans

Your problem is that the evidence, such as I've shown you above, says they evolved from a common ancestor. The fact that such groups have transitions, but those not related do not, pretty much eliminates a "common designer" claim.

You have failed but your gave it your best. Unless you can show us a counter-example.

Good luck.

 

[Barbarian]

Gee said you can't "take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage".

Since you declined to answer on transitionals, let's test this claim. If I can show you a series of fossils, arranged in time in the rocks, in which the differences between two adjacent ones is less than is seen between many living species today, will you admit that is a lineage?

If not, why not?