Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[ding]

Are we talking finches or feathers? I know a bit about each but I'm easily confused apparently.

We are talking about the origin of birds. I'm just trying to hold you to the same standard you established for evolution from slight changes like Darwin's finches.

 

[ding]

How much do you think remains in the fossil record?

It takes some very specific "accidents" for creatures to fossilize. Only the very smallest of a percent ever have this happen, and the creature has to be at the right time, at the right place for this to happen.

Heck, one is the evolution of felinae and pantherinae. That divurgence was only around 10 mya, but there is almost no fossil record of it. Many still debate which came off of which, or if they are both offshoots of the predecessor animal.

Hell, even closer we know that all modern dogs evolved from the wolf. But tell me, where are all the fossils that showed this in action? Where is the "fossil record" that showed the mighty wolf transforming into the chihuahua? That was less than 9 kya, where is the fossil record?

We know it happened, show us the proof. Oh, and also the malamute, the hare dog, and the xolo. We know they all evolved from the wolf, and in the last 9,000 years.

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium and why that came about in the first place?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You rail against Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old

But you are beating a dead horse because thats not a common belief

You might want to check that.

 

[Mushroom]

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium and why that came about in the first place?

You are the one demanding fossil proof of something millions of years ago. Hell, I am asking for fossils less than 10,000 years old.

And you do not see the similarity. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Mac-7]

You might want to check that.

I dont think so

But as for anyone who may date the earth at 6000 years big deal

Those people are wrong but they harm no one

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't see any slight changes.

I did. Lots of them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I dont think so

Yeah, you already said that. . Last poll I saw put it at about 40% of American adults.

They don't harm anyone. But they do sometimes step out of their lane.

 

[james bond]

Aren't you the one who claims that radioisotope dating is a lie?

C14 dating is for 50,000 years and less and usually done on deceased organic remains with C14 remaining. The one that Clair Patterson created in 1956 is for longer time and inorganic materials, but he made errors -- Cosmos Review: “The Clean Room”. That's what I mean when evos use Patterson's work.

Here's the article on dino fossils with C14 remaining -- C14 dinos - creation.com.

What about Mars and oceans of water on its surface? What happened to it and did it produce any life? AFAIK, there wasn't any life discovered. Not even a microbe, but I'm open to it. What is the latest news?

 

[alang1216]

We are talking about the origin of birds. I'm just trying to hold you to the same standard you established for evolution from slight changes like Darwin's finches.

So we have dinosaurs with feathers, we have birds with feathers. The dino feathers were not evolved to fly, they served other purposes. It doesn't seem like much of a leap to say as dinos used their feathers to enhance gliding they evolved better flight feathers and gradually became birds. Probably happened first in small isolated populations then spread.

I'm getting fuzzy on where we disagree.

 

[ding]

You are the one demanding fossil proof of something millions of years ago. Hell, I am asking for fossils less than 10,000 years old.

And you do not see the similarity. Why am I not surprised.

You are probably surprised because you haven't taken the time to investigate punctuated equilibrium for yourself and think I should be spoon feeding you on the basis for PE. I shouldn't. You are a big boy.

 

[ding]

So we have dinosaurs with feathers, we have birds with feathers. The dino feathers were not evolved to fly, they served other purposes. It doesn't seem like much of a leap to say as dinos used their feathers to enhance gliding they evolved better flight feathers and gradually became birds. Probably happened first in small isolated populations then spread.

I'm getting fuzzy on where we disagree.

Small successive gradual changes leading to speciation. That's where we disagree. It's not supported by the fossil record.


And you believing fossils are geology. I almost forgot about that.

 

[ding]

I did. Lots of them.

Proponents of PE would disagree.

 

[alang1216]

C14 dating is for 50,000 years and less and usually done on deceased organic remains with C14 remaining. The one that Clair Patterson created in 1956 is for longer time and inorganic materials, but he made errors -- Cosmos Review: “The Clean Room”. That's what I mean when evos use Patterson's work.

Here's the article on dino fossils with C14 remaining -- C14 dinos - creation.com.

Got it. So when human (Neanderthal) remains are dated to 40,000 years ago, you're good with those numbers?

 

[alang1216]

Small successive gradual changes leading to speciation. That's where we disagree. It's not supported by the fossil record.

You're certainly welcome to your interpretation but the fossil record is not the only source of evolutionary data.

And you believing fossils are geology. I almost forgot about that.

For historical reasons, paleontology is part of the geology department at many universities: in the 19th and early 20th centuries, geology departments found fossil evidence important for dating rocks, while biology departments showed little interest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Proponents of PE would disagree.

No they wouldn't. Proponents of PE dont necessarily say it's the only mode of speciation. Only that it did happen a lot.

 

[ding]

You're certainly welcome to your interpretation but the fossil record is not the only source of evolutionary data.


For historical reasons, paleontology is part of the geology department at many universities: in the 19th and early 20th centuries, geology departments found fossil evidence important for dating rocks, while biology departments showed little interest.

I've worked with geologists and paleontologists enough not to confuse the two.

 

[ding]

No they wouldn't. Proponents of PE dont necessarily say it's the only mode of speciation. Only that it did happen a lot.

uh huh.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] and their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

uh huh.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] and their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Yes, Gould proposed that, 50 years ago. As it turns out, this is 50 years later, and there is more than one scientist on the planet. Always glad to clarify.

This garbage post by you is why you usually stay on ignore. In a nutshell.

 

[ding]

Yes, Gould proposed that, 50 years ago. As it turns out, this is 50 years later, and there is more than one scientist on the planet. Always glad to clarify.

This garbage post by you is why you usually stay on ignore. In a nutshell.

This is exactly how a religious fanatic would respond to a challenge of his religion.

This is science. Not religion.

 

[james bond]

Got it. So when human (Neanderthal) remains are dated to 40,000 years ago, you're good with those numbers?

Not so fast, I said Neanderthals fossils are like those of regular humans today, i.e. they aren't common ancestors from the past as evolutionists claim. Shouldn't you produce these fossils and show us comparisons to see how they developed? We should not find Neanderthal fossils in other "time" layers, but I already debunked some of it with today's birds and animals found in the dinosaur level, but for whatever reason they are ignored by the atheist paleontologists.

Furthermore, there should be C14 remaining in those fossils. This would be the clincher and your scientists could do radiocarbon dating on them.

ETA: I also said I've been to the Pinnacles and Carlsbad Caverns. If I was a "evolution" Neanderthal, then I would not live in a cave as they are dark, cold, and the surrounding area is not suitable for growing crops. There is mostly forest nearby. Thus, creationists claim prehistoric people did not live in caves. Maybe they were temporary shelters or places to show ones art or graffiti lol.