Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[carlosMM]

Fossilization isn't just about having or not having bones; it has more to do with the terrain in which they are most likely to die in. If bats don't live in and around areas that are conducive to fossilization, you aren't going to find very many bat fossils.

NOTE: I don't know for sure, this is just my best guess.

Good guess. Bats live usually in forested or bushland areas, or mountainous terrain. Not good for fossilisation.
Jellyfish live in marine environments, get washed onto the shore. Very good depositional environment.

no change over 500 million years. cmon know

No change in those parts preserved - and even there are tiny changes. Exactly what the ToE predicts for highly stable environments. I guess you know little about how evolution works?

 

[Miles Teg]

Magicfan, Lion/Tiger hybrids are an interesting example of the flexibility of the term "genus", but it doesn't change the facts. We have fossils that were clearly distinct from both lions and tigers, but much more similar to lions. We've also found the opposite. According to the fossil evidence, Lions are actually a sister species to leopards, and more distantly related to tigers. If you want to dispute that, explain why the fossils are wrong.

Of course you can actually get sheep-goat hybrids every once in a couple billion tries or so. Not everything in biology is as simple as what can make babies with what!

if bats don't fossilize well how can jellyfish be fossilized

Bats are terrestrial, jellyfish are marine. The conditions underwater are more favorable to fossilization. This isn't a hard concept. EDIT: Looks like I got crossposted with Carlos.

No change in those parts preserved - and even there are tiny changes. Exactly what the ToE predicts for highly stable environments. I guess you know little about how evolution works?

I'm reluctant to make fun of him for that. Keep in mind, the ToE has changed since Darwin's day, and the masses are slow to keep up. Dawin didn't understand that evolution happened in spurts either.

 

[Ajidica]

im not saying the liger was the cat kind that was on the ark but through micro-evolution we can have a great variety from the one cat kind that was on the ark.

So you believe in evolution. Remind me again what we are arguing about?
Macro-evolution is merely micro-evolution. They work according to the same principles.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Quick question for whoever brought up Noah's Ark being discovered:

How will you verify it isn't a hoax if all scientific dating techniques are so woefully inadequate as evidence against creationism?

 

[Tacitusitis]

Why would there be a cat "kind"?

Cats are a family. Do you have any godly idea how many families there are in Chordata much less Animalia?

Just like Dommy in the last thread you probably have no problem with all forty thousand species of spider deriving from one "spider kind" but oh boy when it comes to domesticated animals that people are familiar with, we have to make sure there's one of each because they are their own "kind." A pair of donkeys and a pair of horses but only two spiders.

 

[magicfan101]

So you believe in evolution. Remind me again what we are arguing about?
Macro-evolution is merely micro-evolution. They work according to the same principles.

nope incorrect.

i believe in micro evolution variety within kinds not
macro evolution molecules to man (through a blind, and random process) reminder: natural selection is a information losing process there is no know process where information gets added to the genome: we can lose a tail but where did the tail come from in the first place when there is no information adding process

 

[Miles Teg]

Again, random mutations are subjected to the rigorous test of "what helps me make babies". We have computer models showing how random mutation and a selective process make evolution happen.

Moreover, we have tons of examples of organisms developing entirely new capabilities. Italian wall lizards left alone on an island for a few decades developed an entirely new gut to handle the switch from a carnivorous diet to a herbivorous one. A laboratory strain of E. Coli over in Michigan University has developed the ability to process citrate, which is incredible considering that inability to handle citrate is a defining trait of E. coli.

 

[magicfan101]

No change in those parts preserved - and even there are tiny changes. Exactly what the ToE predicts for highly stable environments. I guess you know little about how evolution works?

how do you know any "change" happened in the first place if the "change" cannot be observed through the fossil record

 

[sophie]

how do you know any "change" happened in the first place if the "change" cannot be observed through the fossil record

Buuut...it can be....

 

[carlosMM]

how do you know any "change" happened in the first place if the "change" cannot be observed through the fossil record

but it can be observed, gazillion times.

 

[Miles Teg]

Buuut...it can be....

Facts are minor details to the Creationist on a roll

 

[Cu Chulainn]

how do you know any "change" happened in the first place if the "change" cannot be observed through the fossil record

Here we go again.

 

[magicfan101]

. A laboratory strain of E. Coli over in Michigan University has developed the ability to process citrate, which is incredible considering that inability to handle citrate is a defining trait of E. coli.

it took me while to refute this claim basically Michigan has been breeding E-coli for many years to prove macro evolution(its still ecoli). its supposed to simulate many generations of ecoli growth(thousands of years). unfortunately wild ecoli can do the same under the same laboratory conditions

Escherichia coli converts citrate to acetate and succinate

http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/short/180/16/4160

 

[Arakhor]

As for Dinosaurs, it has to do with temperature changes after the Flood, though I do believe there are a few left. In the 1500's they definitely existed (At the time, the definition of "Dragon" which was their word for a modern dinosaur was "An extremely rare, but still existing creature..."

When you start quoting Jack Chick, you pee away what microscopic respect you might have garnered in the process of the last thread.

nope incorrect.

Do you have a degree in biology or geology, such that you are able to make sweeping statements like that? That's a genuine question, by the way.

 

[carlosMM]

it took me while to refute this claim basically Michigan has been breeding E-coli for many years to prove macro evolution(its still ecoli). its supposed to simulate many generations of ecoli growth(thousands of years). unfortunately wild ecoli can do the same under the same laboratory conditions
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/short/180/16/4160

you do not seem to understand a single word the article says.


Who is this Mr. or Mrs. Michigan, btw?

 

[Tacitusitis]

When you start quoting Jack Chick, you pee away what microscopic respect you might have garnered in the process of the last thread.

Quoted for posterity before you can add an l

 

[magicfan101]

Here we go again.

lol i like futurama i must have missed that show. the evidence may line up perfectly on futurama but thats not what we see in the fossil records. we see bits and pieces of bones in the ground. if "macro evolution" is true then the spaghetti monsters is then within the realm of possibility.

 

[Arakhor]

You seem to believe that Adam living for 900 years and the Earth's entire biosphere being created in six days is not only "within the realm of possibility" but also entirely true. The spaghetti monster doesn't seem quite so laughable now, does it?

 

[PeteAtoms]

lol i like futurama i must have missed that show. the evidence may line up perfectly on futurama but thats not what we see in the fossil records. we see bits and pieces of bones in the ground. if "macro evolution" is true then the spaghetti monsters is then within the realm of possibility.

*says the guy, jokingly bringing up FSM to belittle ToE, while the FSM exists as an example of why god is absurd*

(Hello Mr. Pot, my name is Kettle.)

 

[carlosMM]

lol i like futurama i must have missed that show. the evidence may line up perfectly on futurama but thats not what we see in the fossil records. we see bits and pieces of bones in the ground. if "macro evolution" is true then the spaghetti monsters is then within the realm of possibility.

you do realize that while vertebrates are relatively rare, and many of them live on land and thus fossilize badly, invertebrates give you beautiful sequences of developing species over time?


No, you don't, I guess.