Exposing The Great American Fossil Hoax

[rogue06]

I don't know anything about that. it's probably worth a look. Anything is at this point. We've got millions croaking from cancer. My wife has a friend who's 32 years old and just diagnosed with breast cancer. Things are really screwed up.

I'm sorry to hear that. Even though I may think you're a major nut case, I (and I'm sure others too) will be praying for her - if you don't mind a Christian who also supports evolution doing so :smle: Still, this doesn't mean I won't criticize your posting if I disagree. Good Luck and God Bless.

-Rogue06

[BillyBob]

I'm sorry to hear that. Even though I may think you're a major nut case, I (and I'm sure others too) will be praying for her - if you don't mind a Christian who also supports evolution doing so :smle: Still, this doesn't mean I won't criticize your posting if I disagree. Good Luck and God Bless.

-Rogue06

You can't be a Christian and also be an evolutionist! [just ask that moron, Jorge]

[HiddenOne]

I thought you did not post on fossils or geology? Are you abandoning the Madagascar thread or are you going to explain the droughts and forest fires during the flood?

[supersport]

I thought you did not post on fossils or geology? Are you abandoning the Madagascar thread or are you going to explain the droughts and forest fires during the flood?

I don't....I just explained to you how the fossil evidence is not evidence at all. It can't be for the reason given above.

[supersport]

I'm sorry to hear that. Even though I may think you're a major nut case, I (and I'm sure others too) will be praying for her - if you don't mind a Christian who also supports evolution doing so :smle: Still, this doesn't mean I won't criticize your posting if I disagree. Good Luck and God Bless.

-Rogue06

sounds fair. Thanks.

[HiddenOne]

I don't....I just explained to you how the fossil evidence is not evidence at all. It can't be for the reason given above.

You made a bald faced claim. I did not see much support for it.

[aniso]

I don't....I just explained to you how the fossil evidence is not evidence at all. It can't be for the reason given above.

Actually, it is. You are just making things up again. And now, more mind games. You claim to discuss the fossil record without dealing with the fossil record. No one here is falling for it, Sporty.

[supersport]

Actually, it is. You are just making things up again. And now, more mind games. You claim to discuss the fossil record without dealing with the fossil record. No one here is falling for it, Sporty.

you obviously did not read my OP. Here is why the fossil record cannot be used as proof for darwinian evolution....(I underlined what I'd like you to think about as homework.)

So, you have a tiny chihuahua compared to the huge Great Dane. Same genes. Think of all the different varieties and sizes of dogs in between. Likewise they, as well, certainly ll have the same sets of genes. Now think about thousands of years. If some dog bones were dug up, who could ever tell if one dog is ancestral to another? Their size and shape obviously have nothing to do with genetics. I could line up the bones of a Chihuahua and then a cocker spaniel, and then a Labrador and then a great Dane and say, "WALLAH, there you have it, Darwian evolution!" But that ain't how truth and logic works! Yet, that's exactly what evolutionists have been doing.

Now get this straight:

A change in phenotype is observed as evolution in the fossil record.

But there is no way to tell from the fossils whether the changes in continuous records were caused by variation arising in the genotype or only in the phenotype. We all know now that the environment plays a role in expressing genes (you do know that genes can't turn themselves On and Off, don't you?)....thus, a change in environment may alter the phenotype of the organism, yet there would be NO MUTATION and NO SELECTION. Do you evolutionists get this very simple concept? The logical person can't help but ponder how much of the fossil record has been misconstrued by desperate, monkey-lovin' evolutionists as examples of Darwinian evolution when it was nothing more than a phenotypic expression without any change in the genotype.

[BillyBob]

you obviously did not read my OP.

Why bother?

Here is why the fossil record cannot be used as proof for darwinian evolution....(I underlined what I'd like you to think about as homework.)

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]So, you have a tiny chihuahua compared to the huge Great Dane. Same genes.

Not so, dog DNA has been mapped, different breeds have different genes.

http://www.fhcrc.org/about/pubs/cent...un3/sart2.html

Think of all the different varieties and sizes of dogs in between. Likewise they, as well, certainly ll have the same sets of genes. Now think about thousands of years. If some dog bones were dug up, who could ever tell if one dog is ancestral to another?

If they were determined to be the same age, why would anybody think that one was the ancestor of another?

How do you explain all the extinct species of animals that appear to be the ancestors of current animals?

Did you know that dogs decended from wolves?

http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/A...familydog.html

Their size and shape obviously have nothing to do with genetics.

Huh? Are you sure you wanna stick to that opinion?

I could line up the bones of a Chihuahua and then a cocker spaniel, and then a Labrador and then a great Dane and say, "WALLAH, there you have it, Darwian evolution!" But that ain't how truth and logic works! Yet, that's exactly what evolutionists have been doing.

Only in your dreams, pal!

[oxmixmudd]

you obviously did not read my OP. Here is why the fossil record cannot be used as proof for darwinian evolution....(I underlined what I'd like you to think about as homework.)

So, you have a tiny chihuahua compared to the huge Great Dane. Same genes. Think of all the different varieties and sizes of dogs in between. Likewise they, as well, certainly ll have the same sets of genes. Now think about thousands of years. If some dog bones were dug up, who could ever tell if one dog is ancestral to another? Their size and shape obviously have nothing to do with genetics. I could line up the bones of a Chihuahua and then a cocker spaniel, and then a Labrador and then a great Dane and say, "WALLAH, there you have it, Darwian evolution!" But that ain't how truth and logic works! Yet, that's exactly what evolutionists have been doing.

Now get this straight:

A change in phenotype is observed as evolution in the fossil record.

But there is no way to tell from the fossils whether the changes in continuous records were caused by variation arising in the genotype or only in the phenotype.

Let us look at this claim.

(1) You have picked as an example the dog. The dog is a domesticated animal which has been purposefully bred by human beings to express just about every variation possible within it's genome, to the point many species would have a difficutl time surviving in the wild, and to the point the genome is fragile, some species are typically unhealthy or mentally unstable.
My Point: It is very,very unlikely that this kind of variation in a species is going to form in the wild.

(2) true variation as it occurs in the wild, even in the range of expression available in the unaltered gene, is far more limited than this artificial 'dog' kind of variation due to interbreding within the local population. The available variation is only going to be expressed through geographical and environmental differences. This means that the hairy version of X is going to tend to be in northen lattitudes, the Big version ins one area, the little version in another, etc, with some local variation depending on the environmental niche(s). Thus we will typically expect to see the natural variation you describe spread out over the globe for a given epoch.

Environmentally expressed variation is going to tend to occur in the same geographical area due to long term changes (like continental drift, ice ages etc) that can serve the same function as geographical isolation in two or more different environments.

But still, you have a point. At some unit of time and some gradation in form, it becomes impossible to distinguish evolution from variation. But what are those units of time and variation and space. Another thing to keep in mind: the kind of genetic variation you describe in the dog does not produce major new structures or forms in the skeletal structure of the animal, just variations in size and soft tissue structure. The chihuahua and great dane are for the most part simply stretched/shrunk versions of the same bones in the same basic layout.

However, when we look at the fossil record, we see that certain kinds of animals only occupy certain ranges of time. And when looking at all the fossils from say 500 million years ago, we find only certain sets of animals, wheras when looking at animals from 300 million years ago, we find a completely different set and so on and so forth. Noting this we can say that the set of species from 500 million years ago had, for the most part, died off and been replaced by the set of species found 300 million years ago.

But we can, over these ranges see that certain species are still related, though only remotely so. The changes are far greater than can be expressed from an unaltered genome. And we can also see that this progression in time moves towards the animals which exist today. So while we may not be able to say with certainty a->b->c over 200 million years, we can see that (a,h,w,y) only existed 400 million years ago, and (b,g,x,z) only existed 200 million years ago.

So the fossil record shows us that the set of animals living on the Earth changed in time. Now the question becomes, did A=(a,h,m,x) die off and C=(c,j,o,z) suddenly appear, or did A change into C? Well, if we look at the fossil set from 300 million years ago we can get a clue. The fossil set from 300 million years ago. we find B=(b,i,n,y) which have an awful lot of characteristics of both sets. This would tend to imply the set A changed into the set C, even though we can't necessarily know that any animal of set B was on the direct path from a particular animal in A to a particular animal in C.

We can continue to do this kind of comparison over shorter intervals, but as the intervals become shorter, the danger of your kind of confusion becomes larger, and at some time interval d it becomes impossible to tell the difference.

So, back to your claim. You are trying to claim that the entire of the fossil record is subject to the confusion you descibe - and this just isn't so. At a sufficiently large intervals, it is clear we have completely different animals and ecosystems on this planet. So we know life has changed on this planet over time. Those changes can be start/stops, or continuous change. In reality, it is both. Some species hardly change at all (crocodile,roach). Some appear and completely die off, and over different ranges of time. The continuity of some implies connection over time for all of life on this planet. There is also a broad scale connection in form that simply cannot be denied. These connections imply that overall, change is the solution. Thus evolution is observed in the fossils. That is the 'fact' of evolution.

How this change occurs is still hotly debated. And what animals are linked to other animals in time is (in some cases more than others) debated. That is the "Theory" of evolution.

So your point is shown false. There is a great deal of evidence in the fossil record life has changed significanlty over a very large amount of time. There is no "Great Amercan Fossil Hoax"

As for your 'claim' this is all due to phenotypic vs. genotypic variation: this is trivally shown false by examination of the genetic material in morphologicallly similar species today and in the past (frozen mammoths/neanderthol remains etc).

Jim

[Roy]

The logical person can't help but ponder how much of the fossil record has been misconstrued by desperate, monkey-lovin' evolutionists as examples of Darwinian evolution when it was nothing more than a phenotypic expression without any change in the genotype

'Tis true - all those evolutionary sequences are just environmentally induced phenotypic effects. Why, if only we could simulate the Eocene environment, we could get a herd of horses to breed hyracotheria! And if we beach a pregnant whale, it'll give birth to something with legs! Jurassic Park? a needless waste of resources - just get a couple of blue-tits and breed them in a treeless desert - we'll have T. rexes all over the place in a single generation!

Such a simple idea - I wonder why no-one thought of it before.

Roy

[aniso]

you obviously did not read my OP. Here is why the fossil record cannot be used as proof for darwinian evolution....(I underlined what I'd like you to think about as homework.)

So, you have a tiny chihuahua compared to the huge Great Dane. Same genes. Think of all the different varieties and sizes of dogs in between. Likewise they, as well, certainly ll have the same sets of genes. Now think about thousands of years. If some dog bones were dug up, who could ever tell if one dog is ancestral to another? Their size and shape obviously have nothing to do with genetics. I could line up the bones of a Chihuahua and then a cocker spaniel, and then a Labrador and then a great Dane and say, "WALLAH, there you have it, Darwian evolution!"

"Wallah"???

But that ain't how truth and logic works! Yet, that's exactly what evolutionists have been doing.

No. That is a strawman. Once again you resort to telling evolutionists what we think and say.

Now get this straight:

A change in phenotype is observed as evolution in the fossil record.

But there is no way to tell from the fossils whether the changes in continuous records were caused by variation arising in the genotype or only in the phenotype.

So you assume that changes in phenotype cause of the changes from Cambrian faunal communities to modern faunal communities. In other words, the fossil community of trilobites, brachipods, various worms and jellyfish are able to change to elephants, geckos, primates, rainbow trout and humans...

Sure, Sporty...

In less than 6,000 years...

Sure...

That explain everything.

We all know now that the environment plays a role in expressing genes (you do know that genes can't turn themselves On and Off, don't you?)

NO! You don't say!

....thus, a change in environment may alter the phenotype of the organism, yet there would be NO MUTATION and NO SELECTION.

So, what phenotypic changes cause a trilobit to become a human?

Do you evolutionists get this very simple concept?

I think we understand you quite clearly, Sporty.

The logical person can't help but ponder how much of the fossil record has been misconstrued by desperate, monkey-lovin' evolutionists as examples of Darwinian evolution when it was nothing more than a phenotypic expression without any change in the genotype.

You are right, I do wonder about how people can be so deluded. After all, why isn't the biological world turned on its head after hearing a Supersport argument?

[supersport]

Billyboy you might want to look at this:

http://www.news24.com/News24/AnanziA...846880,00.html

Yes, I stand by my statement that "all dogs have the same genes."

[BillyBob]

"Wallah"???

[Jorge]

You can't be a Christian and also be an evolutionist! [just ask that moron, Jorge]

You're calling ME a "moron"? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

I've NEVER said that, 'a person can't be a Christian and believe in evolution'. In my over 4,300 posts, find one case where I have.

What I have said is that such a person is W-R-O-N-G in his/her beliefs and that this person is doing great harm to Christianity (hopefully, in ignorance).

Now that we know who the moron actually is, please continue ...

Jorge