Christina wrote:
"total BUNK! There are PLENTY of instances of mammals, invertebrates and insects mixed in the same layer of rocks. In one case, an entire tree was found UPSIDE DOWN through layered strata. So... did it just somehow stay upright for "billions" of years while rock slowly accumulated around it? Highly improbable. We also still have NO IDEA how something in between a wing and a leg is somehow better than a plain ol leg. It isn't better unless it's ALL there, and evolution tells us that it can't all be there at once. When you go to look at something determined to see evidence to support your claim, that's not scientific inductive reasoning anymore. That's deductive. And that's what most of today's scientists set out to do. They want to "prove" what they already deeply, desperately believe."
So let's get to it! With a little help from my friends at Richarddawkins.net, there are answers to all of Christina's assertions.
Roaring Atheist responds with:
I will tackle the 'tree' one, since the other is without proper backing, and i'd need to know what exactly this person means by it to explain it. :D
Polystrate trees were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
Courtesy of JustATheory:
1) The condition of the fossil tells much about its method of deposition and burial.
Most polystrate fossil plants are only several metres in height and represent only the lower portion of the tree - this is consistent with a period of rapid burial followed by slow deposition of sediment but extremely hard to justify in terms of a catastrophic flood uprooting whole trees and depositing them elsewhere.
Similarly, it is not uncommon to find polystrate tree fossils with intact root structures. Again, this is incosistent with the flood hypothesis but can easily be explained by subsidence and/or rapid deposition.
2) The soil underlying such polystrate fossils is readily identifiable as being a paleosol. Simply (and from a non-geologist standpoin), paleosols are formed by long weathering of soils exposed to the air followed by rapid deposition of soil.
Paleosols have a different chemical composition to the modern soils overlaying them. In the case of the Joggins fossils in Nova Scotia and those of Yellowstone National Park it is readily apparent that polystrate fossils are deeply rooted in such paleosols which is, again, inconsistent with flood deposition.
3) Polystrate fossils are found in many parts of the world but are not all found at one level in the geologic column. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that a catastophe was responsible for the formation of these features.
Christina said, "We also still have NO IDEA how something in between a wing and a leg is somehow better than a plain ol leg."
The following picture should be self explanatory:
(thanks to Lucid Flight)
And Spacetime Inhabitant had this to add:
Since mammals, invertebrates and insects (which are also invertebrates), co-exist, then it would be no surprise if they are found in same layer. I have never heard the tree claim - seems like something the person (or their source) simply made up. The person's claim about scientists confuses how scientists work with how creationists and other biblicists operate. It is the religious believers who have a desperate deep belief. Real scientists love to get Nobel prizes, and a surefire way to win one of these is actually to show that a current scientific orthodoxy is incorrect or there is a superior, more complete explanation.
I just want to thank all of those at the Richard Dawkins forums and Christina for stopping by.
D
I cross-posted this at WEIT:
ReplyDeleteAlright, I have to admit I’m confused. I understand how the tree was fossilized, but I’m not understanding the explanation as to how it came to be upside-down in the strata. I’m familiar with how older rock can come to reside above newer rock in the strata through lateral compression, essentially “flipping” the fossil record. Did the strata where the tree resides get flipped through tectonics?
Adding: I loved the flying-squirrel pic regarding the "wings" transition as well. We are sugarglider owners. If you are unfamiliar with sugargliders, the look much like flying squirrels but they are marsupials. It's a constant lesson in evolution for our children!
...so... what's between a leg and a functional "gliding wing"? nothing functional. You just have a little bit of extra skin to drag around. Not really an advantage. But don't get me started: the idea of irreducible complexity is one that just can't be explained away or bypassed. With cars, with computers, with pretty much anything complex at ALL, you have to have all the parts all working together at the outset... or you have a bunch of parts not working at all... and that's useless. End of family tree.
ReplyDeleteThere's a HUGE difference between micro-evolution (essentially the loss of genetic potential; aka speciation) and macro "Evolution" which involves leaps of data appearing from nowhere making some already fine organism somehow "better" ALL AT ONCE.
Christina asks:
ReplyDeletewhat's between a leg and a functional "gliding wing"?
A parachuting squirrel. And before that a leaping squirrel.
That little bit of extra skin does create drag, just like a parachute. Life saving drag that enables a squirrel to climb higher than before. When one climbs high trees, surviving a fall does create an advantage. One that evolution selects upon.
Irreducible complexity has been explained away since it totally bypasses the evidence we see (be it fossil, genetic or chemical).
A car, or a computer are not living things. The comparison does not hold. Even less when it is obvious that car parts can have uses other than just being a car.
There is no difference between "micro" and "macro". What creationists call "macro" is nothing more than a lot of "micro" changes. Just like a savings account. If you save little by little, in time you will have a good amount of money in the bank.
Evolution in no way postulates that a creature is made "better" ALL AT ONCE. That is just a lie. The evidence does not show this. It is all gradual. Step by step. A fact creationism cannot account for.
Where are the rabbits in the pre-cambrian?
responding to the questions about what I meant when I mentioned the upside-down trees stuck right through several layers of "the column" -- yes, I was referring to "polystratic fossils." They are frequent, and not just plants, but animals, too. The hardest ones to "explain" are the invertebrates, who weren't tough enough stuff to push themselves down through already-formed rock, and certainly didn't hover without decaying while sediment swirled around them. The only explanation that really makes sense is that the whole group of fossils was formed quickly (as most fossils are), all at once or very nearly so (feel free to read: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-how-fast.asp)-- a flash flood could do it easily, and often does. Also: http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
ReplyDeletethere is a HUGE difference between macro and micro evolution. Speciation does indeed involve the loss of genetic potential, never a gain. Birds whose beaks are shorter in one island no longer have the genetic material to select FOR longer beaks, unless they re-breed with longer-beaked birds, if they encounter them. that is 180 degrees from becoming a new, more complex creature altogether. That's the difference between taking one color of money out of a bank account a little at a time (micro), and depositing a chunk of multi-colored bills into another (macro).
lastly, Alexis' comment really didn't address my point. Cars & computers aren't alive, thus they are way less complex than any organism. We as logical, thinking designers have to work really hard to change any one part (even if it's just an "upgrade") in a machine in a way that doesn't incapacitate the entire structure. My Dad's an R&D engineer for Michelin Tire, and that's basically his life's work: make good products better without killing 'em first. The idea that blind, random chance accomplished logical, incremental changes that made enough difference to be passed on (or didn't kill the organism) over and over and over again and then that similar changes happened nearly simultaneously that dove-tailed on those (ex. birds having to have lighter bones AND stronger pecs AND feathers for instance)... that is a lot of faith you are asking for there.
And that's where it all comes down. We all have faith-- whether you've "got religion" or not, you have faith. You choose to believe what is unseen, on some level. The evolutionist chooses to believe in the supremacy of random chance. No matter how many times Alexis says it, there is not evidence for gradual, step by step change. There just isn't-- we have fossils of all sorts of organisms, some extinct, but none half-way between another, despite all the search for "missing links." The step-by-step claim doesn't hold, either. Scientists are often surprised and having to reorganize "family trees" as new evidence comes to life. We didn't see the beginning of the earth, or the appearance of life. No one did.
My main, bottom-line: Whatever you choose to believe, you are choosing to believe. You WILL interpret the evidence accordingly. Many scientists do not hold to evolution-- they may or may not be I believe in an all-powerful Creator, who made this world perfectly, out of nothing, by the Power of His Word. I believe He designed everything that is, and that He made man in His own image, with dignity and responsibility. I believe that the sin of man plunged creation into decay and death, resulting in the fossil record of death we have the one we can see in our own homes and hearts daily, so that all of creation now groans, awaiting the day when it will be freed. I also believe that He Himself descended into this world, as Jesus Christ the God-Man, taking on the Curse so that He could defeat it, and as Tolkien put it, begin to "make all the sad things untrue." That reCreating began on the 3rd day after the crucifixion, and will end on the day when He returns, and makes a new Heaven & a new Earth. On that day there will be no need for a sun, or moon... because He himself will be the Light... and He will wipe away all tears from His people's eyes, and there will be no more death. That is the end I long for-- and the end all who deny Him most deeply fear.
Oops!
ReplyDelete"Many scientists do not hold to evolution-- they may or may not be" is unfinished:
"Many scientists do not hold to evolution-- they may or may not be creationists; some are "intelligent designers" and others are just doubters. But they are out there. (one very brief list is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/fossil.asp)"
Many scientists do hold to Creationism because they have reason to-- they love the One who tells them He made them, and that they therefore owe Him their allegiance. Many likewise reject this and embrace Evolutionism for the exact opposite reason: they want nothing to do with such an authority.
"there is a HUGE difference between macro and micro evolution. Speciation does indeed involve the loss of genetic potential, never a gain."
ReplyDeleteYou need to look up atavisms. The supposed "difference" you talk about is imaginary.
"My Dad's an R&D engineer for Michelin Tire, and that's basically his life's work: make good products better without killing 'em first."
You need to look up evolutionary algorithms. These optimize a solution (or find one where none was before) based on evolutionary principles. No intelligence necessary.
"The idea that blind, random chance accomplished logical, incremental changes that made enough difference to be passed on"
Only creationists equate evolution with blind random chance. Evolution is everything but random. At this point it is obvious your rejection of evolution is based on misconceptions of what it entails. See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
"There just isn't-- we have fossils of all sorts of organisms, some extinct, but none half-way between another, despite all the search for "missing links."
There are hundreed of transitional fosils. Just look up Tiktaalik roseae or Protoarchaeopteryx robusta or Caudipteryx zoui. Heck, Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds. See here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece
Whatever you choose to believe, you are choosing to believe.
Nope. The evidence compels a fair and impartial observer to accept the fact that evolution is. I used to be a creationist, but the evidence was just too overwhelming. That is the bottom line. Science, it works.
"Many scientists do hold to Creationism because they have reason to-- they love the One who tells them He made them, and that they therefore owe Him their allegiance."
ReplyDeleteEmotional reasons do not make good science. My allegiance is to the truth, no matter if it contradicts my most cherished existential or metaphysical presuppositions.
Evolution is a fact, no matter how many creationist "scientists" one puts in a list (which by the way is so low to the point of being statistically insignificant). Evolution stands on evidence, not on majority vote or emotion. That is how science works.
"We didn't see the beginning of the earth, or the appearance of life. No one did. "
ReplyDeleteNo one has seen Pluto orbit the sun even once.
Does that mean it does not? The whole "no one was there argument" is really lame. The evidence we have is much, much better than an eye witness account (which btw anyone that has dealings with courts knows how unreliable it is).
"there is not evidence for gradual, step by step change"
Just look up human evolution. Look up our own fossil lineage. Even creationists cannot make up their minds on which fossils belong to humans and which belong to non-human primates. This shows how subtle and gradual the transformation is.
Read here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
I quote: "As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to agree on which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Now we're even seeing the phenomenon of creationists who can't quite decide if an individual skull is human or ape - and yet they're quite sure it can't be an intermediate".
To me this shows how biased creationists are. Remember, their allegiance is not to truth but to their religion. How sad....
Lastly, all the objections Cristina brought and that I did not address have simple and understandable answers. Lack of time precludes me from answering all of them.
ReplyDeleteAny simple google search will do.
Good night!!!
Saying micro evolution happens but macro evolution doesn't; is like saying I can pick my nose for one second, but I can't pick it for ten.
ReplyDelete