The 'Bestiary': The Burgess Shale

[Steven_R]

No, it shouldn't.



The OP is about the scientific proof provided by geology.
It simply proves that numerous organism appear in the fossil record fully formed and far different than anything found before.

For some reason, many of those who are enamored of Darwinian evolution have no way to account for these facts......and they are facts.....and so attempt to claim that simply providing the fossil evidence is somehow "religion," as in

"This should be in the religion section."



Fossils are actual science, as opposed to Darwin's musings.


Don't be afraid to confront the truth.

Lordy, lordy, what a dumb thing to say. But that is par for the course for our poor dear deluded PC. Yes, fossils are actual science, and one of the cornerstones of the present Theory of Evolution. And here in Oregon, in the John Day Formation, we have the history of the evolution of the horses. From 45 million years ago the five million years ago. There are many other formations in the world that have many million years of continuous evolution in their fossils. Such as the Karoo of South Africa.

Fossils, until the mapping of genetics and DNA, were the cornerstone of the Theory of Evolution. Now they are a sturdy supporting pillar. Imagining that the fossils we find refute evolution demonstrates your ignorance of the whole subject of geology. As Orogenicman stated, show us the Cambrian bunny rabbit.

"And here in Oregon, in the John Day Formation, we have the history of the evolution of the horses. From 45 million years ago the five million years ago."

Really?


So you are basing your defense of Darwin's theory on the existence of a fossil record of equus?

And if it is bogus, .....then, so is Darwin?


Is that your premise?


Well, then....

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh oh.


Bye, bye, Darwin?



You might want to go further than the above....

There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don't ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951

2. Froehlich, D.J., Quo vadis eohippus? The systematics and taxonomy of the early Eocene equids (Perissodactyla), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society134:141–256, February 2002.

3. Abel, O., Paläobiologie und Stammesgeschichte (Paleobiology and the History of Phylogeny), Gustav Fisher Publishing, Jena, pp. 284–290, 1929; and MacFadden, B.J. et al., Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic calibration of horse evolution: evidence from the Miocene of Florida, Geology 19:242–245, 1991.

4. Osborn, H.F., Equidae of the Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene of North America: iconographic type revision, Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 2:74–75, 1918. One example is that one of the most “primitive horses”—Para-hippus cognatus—supposedly evolved as one of the last species, while one of the least primitive—P. coloradensis—evolved at the same time as the first species of Parahippus.

5. Scott, W.B., A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publ. Co., NY, p. 409, 1937

6. In the Parahippus group there are some findings that are assumed by some researchers to be intermediate forms between Parahippus and Merychippus (e.g. with reference to pictures in Osborn, ref. 11, where some of the least “evolved” “horses” originated amongst the last ‘horses’; see pp. 74–75). These findings only consist of teeth and parts of jaws that can be difficult to tie to a certain skeleton. Hence, these teeth and jaws could therefore be sorted into Parahippus and Merychippus, rather than any intermediate form between these two animals.

7. Cavanaugh, D.P., Wood, T. and Wise, K.P., Fossil equidae: a monobaraminic, stratomorphic series; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 143–149, 2003.

First there is the gap at Epihippus, in which fossil pieces have been found of this animal, and they resemble those of the earlier Orohippus, Eohippus and other formerly-identified hyracotherid species.
Then, there is another gap in or just after the group Parahippus. It would probably be possible to classify the different parts of Parahippusas belonging to two different animals—Miohippus and Merychippus. Parahippus showed similarities to 14 of 18 species of horses, and the “Parahippus” step in the horse series appears to be a mixed up group of unrelated fossils.



So, Rocks.....which of us is dogmatic....and which of us is correct?


Take your time....

Have you actually read those papers? Do you understand what they are saying? Or are you just cutting and pasting a list and hoping it scores you a point?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lordy, lordy, what a dumb thing to say. But that is par for the course for our poor dear deluded PC. Yes, fossils are actual science, and one of the cornerstones of the present Theory of Evolution. And here in Oregon, in the John Day Formation, we have the history of the evolution of the horses. From 45 million years ago the five million years ago. There are many other formations in the world that have many million years of continuous evolution in their fossils. Such as the Karoo of South Africa.

Fossils, until the mapping of genetics and DNA, were the cornerstone of the Theory of Evolution. Now they are a sturdy supporting pillar. Imagining that the fossils we find refute evolution demonstrates your ignorance of the whole subject of geology. As Orogenicman stated, show us the Cambrian bunny rabbit.

"And here in Oregon, in the John Day Formation, we have the history of the evolution of the horses. From 45 million years ago the five million years ago."

Really?


So you are basing your defense of Darwin's theory on the existence of a fossil record of equus?

And if it is bogus, .....then, so is Darwin?


Is that your premise?


Well, then....

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh oh.


Bye, bye, Darwin?



You might want to go further than the above....

There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don't ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951

2. Froehlich, D.J., Quo vadis eohippus? The systematics and taxonomy of the early Eocene equids (Perissodactyla), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society134:141–256, February 2002.

3. Abel, O., Paläobiologie und Stammesgeschichte (Paleobiology and the History of Phylogeny), Gustav Fisher Publishing, Jena, pp. 284–290, 1929; and MacFadden, B.J. et al., Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic calibration of horse evolution: evidence from the Miocene of Florida, Geology 19:242–245, 1991.

4. Osborn, H.F., Equidae of the Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene of North America: iconographic type revision, Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 2:74–75, 1918. One example is that one of the most “primitive horses”—Para-hippus cognatus—supposedly evolved as one of the last species, while one of the least primitive—P. coloradensis—evolved at the same time as the first species of Parahippus.

5. Scott, W.B., A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publ. Co., NY, p. 409, 1937

6. In the Parahippus group there are some findings that are assumed by some researchers to be intermediate forms between Parahippus and Merychippus (e.g. with reference to pictures in Osborn, ref. 11, where some of the least “evolved” “horses” originated amongst the last ‘horses’; see pp. 74–75). These findings only consist of teeth and parts of jaws that can be difficult to tie to a certain skeleton. Hence, these teeth and jaws could therefore be sorted into Parahippus and Merychippus, rather than any intermediate form between these two animals.

7. Cavanaugh, D.P., Wood, T. and Wise, K.P., Fossil equidae: a monobaraminic, stratomorphic series; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 143–149, 2003.

First there is the gap at Epihippus, in which fossil pieces have been found of this animal, and they resemble those of the earlier Orohippus, Eohippus and other formerly-identified hyracotherid species.
Then, there is another gap in or just after the group Parahippus. It would probably be possible to classify the different parts of Parahippusas belonging to two different animals—Miohippus and Merychippus. Parahippus showed similarities to 14 of 18 species of horses, and the “Parahippus” step in the horse series appears to be a mixed up group of unrelated fossils.



So, Rocks.....which of us is dogmatic....and which of us is correct?


Take your time....

Have you actually read those papers? Do you understand what they are saying? Or are you just cutting and pasting a list and hoping it scores you a point?

Have you read my posts?

Do you actually understand them?

Or have you simply been trained in government schools to defend the indefensible, to ignore facts, to accept the warm embrace of the herd rather than actually think?



Nothing I have posted has been refuted.
That mean anything to you?

 

[Steven_R]

You didn't answer the question. Did you read those articles yourself or are you parroting someone else's talking points?

Every single point you make has been refuted by people who actually do this for a living and it has been done multiple times online.

You live in Brooklyn, right? Head down to the Brooklyn College bookstore and pick up the textbook for Biol 3007W. That's the undergraduate class in Evolution. Read it, I mean really read it. Compare it to the articles you cut and paste and post here. Do the work. Follow up and see how the work now compares to articles from 1918 and 1953, articles written before genetics and plate tectonics were accepted by the way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You didn't answer the question. Did you read those articles yourself or are you parroting someone else's talking points?

Every single point you make has been refuted by people who actually do this for a living and it has been done multiple times online.

You live in Brooklyn, right? Head down to the Brooklyn College bookstore and pick up the textbook for Biol 3007W. That's the undergraduate class in Evolution. Read it, I mean really read it. Compare it to the articles you cut and paste and post here. Do the work. Follow up and see how the work now compares to articles from 1918 and 1953, articles written before genetics and plate tectonics were accepted by the way.

Answer my question:

Why are you so afraid to admit that everything I've posted is true?



"Every single point you make has been refuted,,,"

Bald-faced lie.

 

[orogenicman]

You didn't answer the question. Did you read those articles yourself or are you parroting someone else's talking points?

Every single point you make has been refuted by people who actually do this for a living and it has been done multiple times online.

You live in Brooklyn, right? Head down to the Brooklyn College bookstore and pick up the textbook for Biol 3007W. That's the undergraduate class in Evolution. Read it, I mean really read it. Compare it to the articles you cut and paste and post here. Do the work. Follow up and see how the work now compares to articles from 1918 and 1953, articles written before genetics and plate tectonics were accepted by the way.

Answer my question:

Why are you so afraid to admit that everything I've posted is true?



"Every single point you make has been refuted,,,"

Bald-faced lie.

Answer my question. Did you ever find that Cambrian bunny rabbit?