More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[ding]

Why are there no fossils ever found of any kind of arthropod prior to trilobites?

Why do you think there weren’t?

 

[abu afak]

I Taught you about that. (Punctuated Equilibrium)

LOL, you Lying 5-word little Fool.
Why didn't you check before makling the claim?
Answer? You're not smart enough/Don't care enough about anything to look it up!
It's so easy.

I used the term as far back as 2013 and also in 2014 and 2015, etc, etc, etc.

Search results for query: punctuated​

While You weren't even a member until 2016.
You Stupid assh0le.

`

 

[abu afak]

Here, here's an explanation as to why the fossil record doesn't really record anything other than arbitrary random samples (this is the main reason that the pseudoscientific "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis was originally cobbled together).

View attachment 1057547

Discontinuities in the Fossil Record | Evolution News​

The fossil record generally documents a discontinuous history of life with sudden appearances of new body plans and new forms of life in saltational events.
news.org

1a. You Still didn't answer my post/citation. (tho I finally forced some Non-repLie after reposting it.)
1b. Nor the OP and anatomical vestiges, Including Ours like the Coccyx/tail bone and Wisdom teeth from when We were Apes.
2. "EvolutionNews" is the 'Discovery Institute,' a Kweationist/ID website.
(Like AnswersInGenesis and Creation.com.)
3. You're a Joke and now a self-declared Lying-for-Jesus FRAUD. No different than Jehovah's WitLess PoliticSheik.
`

 

[ding]

LOL, you Lying 5-word little Fool.
Why didn't you check before makling the claim?
Answer? You're not smart enough/Don't care enough about anything to look it up!
It's so easy.

I used the term as far back as 2013 and also in 2014 and 2015, etc, etc, etc.

Search results for query: punctuated​

While You weren't even a member until 2016.
You Stupid assh0le.

`

So glad I could help educate you on the origin of species. You were an exceptionally slow learner, but I endeavored to persevere and was eventually successful.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Same reason we don't still have fins.

Because one day a fish "evolved" legs and lungs?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So glad I could help educate you on the origin of species. You were an exceptionally slow learner, but I endeavored to persevere and was eventually successful.

Chief Dan George!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are you making a "God-of-the-Gaps-in-the-Fossil-Record" argument?

Two questions:

1. There is a scientific 'tree of life' that has been assembled over centuries. Of the trillions of fossils found, why have we not found a single one that violates that sequence?
   
2. What is the alternative theory you do believe for how species came to be? Punctuated Creation?

I will answer your questions:

1. Well there is no "tree" as such. The tree is an organizational structure created by humans. The specimens might well exist but the "branches" are inferences and the morphological differences between the specimens that are linked by "branches" are always dramatic. The diagram is a way of looking at the fossil record that represents the expectation of Darwinists, it is an interpretation of the record.

2. I have no "theory" as to why the record is as it is, but there are other interpretations of the record. One point to note is that the record itself undermines the claims of continuity because nowhere have we ever found proof of continuity. Therefore the branches might not have any basis, they are presumption's based on the belief that there was continuity but the evidence was not preserved. But that's a presumption, conjecture.

The branches do not prove continuity only the belief in an unobserved continuity.

So now I will ask a question, if there was no continuity (i.e. the branches are misleading) why should I believe there was continuity? Why should I interpret the record as you interpret it?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why do you think there weren’t?

There's no fossil evidence that there were any prior arthropods, that's why I think that. Claims without evidence are referred to as conjecture, not fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because one day a fish "evolved" legs and lungs?

Not in one day, silly.

Ever see a fish with gills and lungs?

 

[alang1216]

I will answer your questions:

1. Well there is no "tree" as such. The tree is an organizational structure created by humans. The specimens might well exist but the "branches" are inferences and the morphological differences between the specimens that are linked by "branches" are always dramatic. The diagrams is a way of looking at the fossil record that represents the expectation of Darwinists, it is an interpretation of the record.

We don't need fossils to see the tree, we can look at the life that is all around us. Everything we see in the natural world conforms to Darwin's descent from a common ancestor. Donkeys and horses are close enough on that tree that they can produce offspring although that offspring is sterile. There are examples of separate species that can't reproduce, separate species that can reproduce, and example, like mules are are in between.

2. I have no "theory" as to why the record is as it is, but there are other interpretations of the record.

So you don't know how species are created but you know how they are NOT created? Sorry, that doesn't pass the sniff test.

One point to note is that the record itself undermines the claims of continuity because nowhere have we ever found proof of continuity. Therefore the branches might not have any basis, they are presumption's based on the belief that there was continuity but the evidence was not preserved. But that's a presumption, conjecture.

The branches do not prove continuity only the belief in an unobserved continuity.

So now I will ask a question, if there was no continuity (i.e. the branches are misleading) why should I believe there was continuity? Why should I interpret the record as you interpret it?

There is only continuity. Can you point to a fossil from after the Cretaceous that shows a discontinuity?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not in one day, silly.

Ever see a fish with gills and lungs?

Can you please explain how this happened?

Fish have gills and fins, they can’t breath air; the two, gills and lungs, are mutually exclusive

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can you please explain how this happened?

Probably. But I am not going to do so.

If you are honestly curious, go read what the experts say.

Fish have gills and fins, they can’t breath air

Except for the ones that can.

Again, go read up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Probably. But I am not going to do so.

If you are honestly curious, go read what the experts say.

Except for the ones that can.

Again, go read up.

The experts are very cryptic, because none of the explanation makes any logical sense. Was a fish born with lungs instead of gills?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The experts are very cryptic, because none of the explanation makes any logical sense.

Oh yeah? Then describe the explanation for ne. Maybe I can help you find where you are confusing yourself.

Because, I assure you, if you think the explanation is not logical or supported by mountains of evidence, the error is all yours.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

We don't need fossils to see the tree,

Pardon? You can prove a relationship between fossils without the need for fossils?

we can look at the life that is all around us. Everything we see in the natural world conforms to Darwin's descent from a common ancestor. Donkeys and horses are close enough on that tree that they can produce offspring although that offspring is sterile. There are examples of separate species that can't reproduce, separate species that can reproduce, and example, like mules are are in between.

Sure, if you already believe there was continuity then of course you'll "see" the tree. But that's putting the cart before the horse. The record itself does not prove continuity, take any branch you like and go and check, we've never seen any evidence of continuity. If we are led by the evidence (rather than a prior belief) then we must - if we are honest - say that there's no evidence of continuity, so why do you insist on saying there was?

So you don't know how species are created but you know how they are NOT created? Sorry, that doesn't pass the sniff test.

I said I don't know because I do not know what happened, what I am quite confident of though is that these specimens do not demonstrate continuity that's all I can say, the continuity is an interpretation of the data that's all it is. It could be true, it could be that there was indeed continuity but as things stand today there's no empirical basis to the claim.

There is only continuity. Can you point to a fossil from after the Cretaceous that shows a discontinuity?

Well you'd need lots of specimens to show continuity, the two endpoints of the branch and a multitude of specimens that show gradual changes from the start to the end specimen. They all show discontinuity. A continuity would be literally thousands of specimens differing minutely over spans of many millions of years, the remnants of the millions of generations that must have existed, but I know of no such record.

If there was continuity then we have a very very selective preservation and the same selectivity in every part of the world where we find examples of given specimens. Look at the Cambrian, why are there so few "snapshots" wherever we look? we find trilobites all over the world yet more or less the same narrow selectivity in what was preserved.

Please show me the best example you can of continuity between to two disparate morphologies, let me see what you have.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh yeah? Then describe the explanation for ne. Maybe I can help you find where you are confusing yourself.

Because, I assure you, if you think the explanation is not logical or supported by mountains of evidence, the error is all yours.

AI Overview
Learn more


Fish evolved to live on land through a combination of natural selection, adaptations, and changes in the environment:

• Stronger fins: Some fish developed stronger, more muscular fins that helped them crawl onto land.
  
  
• Lungs: Fish evolved lungs to obtain oxygen on land.
  
  
• Larger eyes: Fish evolved larger eyes to see farther and spot prey out of water.
  
  
• Tidal pools: Tides created tidal pools, stranding fish and forcing them to adapt to life out of water.
  
  
• Atmospheric oxygen: The ocean's primary producers diversified, increasing atmospheric oxygen levels to a level that allowed aquatic animals to transition to land.
  
  
• Natural selection: Natural selection shaped adaptations that allowed fish to live on land.
  

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AI Overview
Learn more


Fish evolved to live on land through a combination of natural selection, adaptations, and changes in the environment:

• Stronger fins: Some fish developed stronger, more muscular fins that helped them crawl onto land.
  
  
• Lungs: Fish evolved lungs to obtain oxygen on land.
  
  
• Larger eyes: Fish evolved larger eyes to see farther and spot prey out of water.
  
  
• Tidal pools: Tides created tidal pools, stranding fish and forcing them to adapt to life out of water.
  
  
• Atmospheric oxygen: The ocean's primary producers diversified, increasing atmospheric oxygen levels to a level that allowed aquatic animals to transition to land.
  
  
• Natural selection: Natural selection shaped adaptations that allowed fish to live on land.

Fish and lungs just don't work together

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

AI Overview
Learn more


Fish evolved to live on land through a combination of natural selection, adaptations, and changes in the environment:

• Stronger fins: Some fish developed stronger, more muscular fins that helped them crawl onto land.
  
  
• Lungs: Fish evolved lungs to obtain oxygen on land.
  
  
• Larger eyes: Fish evolved larger eyes to see farther and spot prey out of water.
  
  
• Tidal pools: Tides created tidal pools, stranding fish and forcing them to adapt to life out of water.
  
  
• Atmospheric oxygen: The ocean's primary producers diversified, increasing atmospheric oxygen levels to a level that allowed aquatic animals to transition to land.
  
  
• Natural selection: Natural selection shaped adaptations that allowed fish to live on land.

So in reality you have never once read an explanation by a scientist.

Did you know there are fish that breathe air? You do, now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fish and lungs just don't work together

Except for when fish have lungs. Frank, you GOTTA sense the train coming at you, right now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except for when fish have lungs. Frank, you GOTTA sense the train coming at you, right now.

So fish breath water with their imaginary lungs? Water, air, it's all the same