Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Questions such as: What is the point of theory of Evolution? Are neglected and are not encouraged. For the answer proves that it is pointless. Academic Scholars and Scientist are i

I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because i use evoluti

How is Prophet Adam’s (A.S.) creation (about 5,764 years ago) make sense when fossils found from human beings are almost 25 million years old? question From the beginning

Posted Images

  • 1 month later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/28/2018 at 5:57 PM, iCenozoic said:

 

Im just pulling more old discussions out from the grave here.

 

I just wanted to jump back into the discussion of the polish tetrapod tracks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_tetrapod_trackways#Holy_Cross_Mountains,_Poland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

 

The boundaries of precisely when tetrapods evolved to walk on land is still being worked on (and will continue to be). But I thought the above wiki page was interesting.

We have late devonian (360-375ish) tetrapodomorph tracks, in which there is confidence in terrestrial locomotion. This is how it is in most late devonian strata that is fossil bearing. You find regular tetrapod tracks from animals walking on land.

Middle Devonian, 375-390 you have things like tiktaalik

" The trackways are late Middle Devonian in age based on a palynological assemblage from the Valentia Slate Formation and the U-Pb radioisotopic dating of an interstratified air-fall tuff bed to ca. 385 Ma,[3] making these tetrapod trackways some of the earliest recorded, along with traces of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian) age from Poland.[4]The most extensive of the Valentia Island trackways is preserved in a fine-grained sandstone and records some 145 imprints in a parallel orientation of the left and right impressions. The systematic variation in size of the impressions affords distinction between tracks left by the manus and pes of the animal, but the trackway does not preserve any finer details. Other trackways at the same site preserve tail and body drag impressions; the nature of the impressions and that of the sandstone led to the interpretation that the setting was not saturated in water. Consequently, these tracks are interpreted as evidence of fully terrestrial locomotion."

"In 2004, three fossilized Tiktaalik skeletons were discovered in rock formed from late Devonian river sediments on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, in northern Canada.[50][51]Estimated ages reported at 375 MYA, 379 MYA, and 383 MYA."

So you have these really early tetrapod tracks and the first skeleton of a tetrapod/fish hybrid.

Then in the early devonian (390-410ish) you get things like the polish tracks being dated at 395

A collection of trackways and impressions is reported from the Wojciechowice Formation of the Holy Cross Mountains located in south-eastern Poland.[4] The Wojciechowice Formation is a shallow marine-fed tidal or lagoonal unit that dates to the Eifelian Stage of the Middle Devonian, approximately 395 million years ago based on conodont fossils and previous biostratigraphy on bounding units. The preservation of the track assemblage varies with some clearer tracks preserving finer morphology such as digitation while others are more vague, preserving only an outline. Showing consistency with the aforementioned tracks, these fall into two parallel rows of impressions and show no evidence of body or tail drag.

Then of course we have fish dominating really dominating the early devonian.

So we have clear fish domination in the early devonian (400) and prior, then tetrapod and terrestrial locomotion by the late devonian (385). Tiktaalik around 380 and the polish tracks around 395. So in this middle period, we have entered this discussion of, exactly where or when is the very first tetrapod? We are pulling these fish/tetrapod hybrids out of this gray area in the middle. Im curious to see what comes out of Antarctica here in the next few years. Research is ongoing. People area really working open this 20 million year window to figure out the most feasible explanation, within. Which in geologic time, 20 million years, really is...we are talking about back to back formations in a pretty brief window of time, of a much larger succession spanning billions of years of rock.

 

I think part of why I wanted to make this post was just to point out that, the polish tracks and tiktaalik do not really conflict with one another in the sense that they both support the theory of evolution via the fossils succession. But rather, both the polish trace fossils and tiktaalik among the succession of other fossils, are pulling us into a discussion of fine tuned precision of when and how the fish to tetrapod transition occurred.

So still no direct evidence of humans evolving from another species?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, 313 Seeker said:

So still no direct evidence of humans evolving from another species?

It's always easier to begin with concepts that people understand. 

Once someone understands mutations and natural selection. Once they understand the fossil succession and are familiar with what transitional fossils are, where and how they're located, once they're familiar with phylogenetic trees of ERVs, comparative anatomy, genetics, cytochrome C, and the fossil succession, and aware of the predictions the theory makes on a regular basis, and biogeographical distributions, and how beneficial mutations increase fitness, and how rates of evolution fluctuate with environmental conditions etc.

Only then would they, or could they, understand the history of mankind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, iCenozoic said:

It's always easier to begin with concepts that people understand. 

Once someone understands mutations and natural selection. Once they understand the fossil succession and are familiar with what transitional fossils are, where and how they're located, once they're familiar with phylogenetic trees of ERVs, comparative anatomy, genetics, cytochrome C, and the fossil succession, and aware of the predictions the theory makes on a regular basis, and biogeographical distributions, and how beneficial mutations increase fitness, and how rates of evolution fluctuate with environmental conditions etc.

Only then would they, or could they, understand the history of mankind.

Hey I'm a biologist, you can't intimidate me with that talk. I take that as a no. Still no link between supposed 'humanoid' sasquatsh and humans. Interesting thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Hey I'm a biologist, you can't intimidate me with that talk. I take that as a no. Still no link between supposed 'humanoid' sasquatsh and humans. Interesting thanks

Your valued input to the topic is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Your valued input to the topic is appreciated.

Ok, last I heard there was still that "missing link" aka "any evidence" that actually links humans to any of the fossil non-humans. I'm just confirming that this is still the status quo. Thanks appreciate it

Edited by 313 Seeker
Proof reading after posting .. old habits die hard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/elpistostege-watsoni-08244.html

The fossil record continues to demonstrate the descent with modification of fish to land based tetrapods. Here we have the discovery of another transitional fossil.

"We announce the discovery of a complete specimen of a tetrapod-like fish, called Elpistostege watsoni, which reveals extraordinary new information about the evolution of the vertebrate hand,” said Flinders University’s Professor John Long, senior author of the study.

Professor Long and colleagues examined the 380-million-year-old specimen using the high-energy computed tomography.

The skeleton of Elpistostege watsoni’s pectoral fin revealed the presence of a humerus (arm), radius and ulna (forearm), rows of carpus (wrist) and phalanges organized in digits (fingers).

“This is the first time that we have unequivocally discovered fingers locked in a fin with fin-rays in any known fish,” Professor Long said."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 3/21/2020 at 8:46 AM, 313 Seeker said:

Ok, last I heard there was still that "missing link" aka "any evidence" that actually links humans to any of the fossil non-humans. I'm just confirming that this is still the status quo. Thanks appreciate it

You mentioned Darwinism in our other talk, I happened to be prepping a post and figured I may as well put it together:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
I'll now provide evidence for evolution as it pertains to the question of missing links:
 
 
As we all know, tiktaalik is a popular transitional fossil. Its traits are significant as they're some of the earliest of their kind. It has a flat head with eyes on top, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It has wrist bones. It has spiracles for breathing air. It has robust pectoral girdles and a robust rib cage for lifting itself against the forces of gravity above water, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It also has an infused skull and a neck for turning it's it's while it's body remains stationary, which is something found in amphibians but not fish.
 
It is very much a tetrapodomorph with many traits of amphibians.
 
But it also has fins, gills and scales like a fish.
 
Which means that it was basically a hybrid between fish and tetrapods.
 
All the above aside, what makes tiktaalik more significant isn't simply its traits, but how, where and even "when" it was found.
 
In the fossil record, no land animals are found anywhere in precambrian, Cambrian, ordovician or silurian rock, nor anywhere in between. By the mid to late devonian, we find tetrapods/amphibians like salamander like species that walked on land.
 
So if evolution were true, of tetrapods evolved from fish, a species like tiktaalik ought to exist between the earliest formations of the devonian or by the end of the silurian at the latest, and the late devonian.
 
Before tiktaalik was found, Neil Shubin and his team knew this. So the scoured geologic maps for rocks of roughly the mid devonian to find rocks between fish and tetrapods where tiktaalik might hypothetically be found.
 
So they rented a helicopter trip to the Canadian Arctic where these middle aged rocks could be examined.
 
They originally started out searching marine devonian strata and realized that they needed to move inland (prehistoric inland) to the west, and they had to make their way to geology of a river bed/lacustrine origin. And it was there that some 10-15 tiktaalik specimen were found.
 
The reason that this serves as evidence for evolution is that it confirms the succession of fossils in accordance with genetic analyses of modern day life. Fish are genetically more similar to tetrapods than to any other animal of higher derivation, which means that it ought to follow, based on genetics, that tiktaalik ought to be present in the location in which it was later found. This is a prediction made with the understanding of descent with modification and common descent, and tiktaalik holds the feature that we might expect to be found in a particular place at a given time.
 
Which leads me to my second point in the discussion:
Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
with the above said, see the following:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
above, we have evolutionary relationships based on what species have certain endogenous retroviruses, based on genetic changes of cytochrome C, based on fossil morphology, based on comparative anatomy of living species, and even based on biogeographic distributions, (you can see fossils change not only vertically through the fossil record, but also horizontally), respectively.
 
Independent studies in each of these fields yield their own cladistic relationships/phylogenetic trees, and while theyre all derived independently, they all match one another.
 
Which is to say that you can make predictions about genetics, based on the order in which fossils are found in the Earth, and the reverse is true as well, in that we can use studies of proteins and DNA in modern day species, to predict the depth, geospatial location and temporal locations of fossils. And these predictions can be made, even to the extent that biologists can predict where fossils will be found in the Earth, sometimes with more precision than even paleontologists can.
 
As the commom statement goes, this is something that really only makes sense in light of evolution.
 
To go back to my prior post, Neil Shubin is a professor of anatomy. He understood or rather, understands anatomical relationships between fish and tetrapods, and it is with this understanding that the locality of tiktaalik was predicted (Along with assistance from geologists and paleontologists).
 
The question is, if not by evolution (and more specifically common descent), why would such a relationship exist between conclusions of these various fields of science? Why can I predict the geospacial location, superpositional depth, and temporal position of a fossil, based on the proteins of living day life? 
Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:
As the commom statement goes, this is something that really only makes sense in light of evolution.
 

Thank you,

well in this case, let them find the missing link fossils that show our evolutionary ancestors ( I.e. missing link). Because so far there are none to show.

btw, the links of google images don't work, they come up as white blank pages for me. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And these predictions can be made, even to the extent that biologists can predict where fossils will be found in the Earth, sometimes with more precision than even paleontologists can.

Let them find any kind of fossils to prove we have actual direct link to any creatures on Earth.

There is the theory floating around that we are genetically manipulated creatures by the Anunaki 'gods' at a place called Adem in South Africa. Did you hear this theory? And that we were bio engineered by those entities full of mistakes in order to work as slaves. Even if the details of this story aren't true, it is worth considering that we are a bio genetically engineered line of very weak and faulty organism, with a unique soul that knows the difference between good and bad, or shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

 

btw, the links of google images don't work, they come up as white blank pages for me. 

 

I have corrected the image links in my prior post for reference.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

Let them find any kind of fossils to prove we have actual direct link to any creatures on Earth.

 

The fossils considered to be our ancestors are Australopithecus and the archaic homosapiens.

Link with image 1

Image 2

Image 3

I'll also forward another link:

Sahelanthropus remains an interesting transitional fossil in that its discovery is an example of another prediction, made by biologists in studying biology if living species.

 

Where paleontologists were actually proven wrong by biologists in that the transition between primitive ape and man was proven to be younger than paleontologists originally suggested.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ramapithecus

Ramapithecus, fossil primate dating from the Middle and Late Miocene epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years ago). For a time in the 1960s and ’70s, Ramapithecus was thought to be a distinct genus that was the first direct ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens) before it became regarded as that of the orangutan ancestor Sivapithecus.

 

The first challenge to the theory came in the late 1960s from American biochemist Allan Wilson and American anthropologist Vincent Sarich, who, at the University of California, Berkeley, had been comparing the molecular chemistry of albumins (blood proteins) among various animal species. They concluded that the ape-human divergence must have occurred much later than Ramapithecus. (It is now thought that the final split took place some 6 million to 8 million years ago.)

Ramapithecus, fossil primate dating from the Middle and Late Miocene epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years ago). For a time in the 1960s and ’70s, Ramapithecus was thought to be a distinct genus that was the first direct ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens) before it became regarded as that of the orangutan ancestor Sivapithecus.he first Ramapithecus fossils (fragments of an upper jaw and some teeth) were discovered in 1932 in fossil deposits in the Siwālik hills of northern India. No significance was attached to those fossils until 1960, when American anthropologist Elwyn Simons of Yale University began studying them and fit the jaw fragments together. On the basis of his observations of the shape of the jaw and of the morphology of the teeth—which he thought were transitional between those of apes and humans—Simons advanced the theory that Ramapithecus represented the first step in the evolutionary divergence of humans from the common hominoid stock that produced modern apes and humans.

Simons’s theory was strongly supported by his student English-born American anthropologist David Pilbeam and soon gained wide acceptance among anthropologists. The age of the fossils (about 14 million years) fit well with the then-prevailing notion that the ape-human split had occurred at least 15 million years ago. The first challenge to the theory came in the late 1960s from American biochemist Allan Wilson and American anthropologist Vincent Sarich, who, at the University of California, Berkeley, had been comparing the molecular chemistry of albumins (blood proteins) among various animal species. They concluded that the ape-human divergence must have occurred much later than Ramapithecus. (It is now thought that the final split took place some 6 million to 8 million years ago.)

Wilson and Sarich’s argument was initially dismissed by anthropologists, but biochemical and fossil evidence mounted in favour of it. Finally, in 1976, Pilbeam discovered a complete Ramapithecus jaw, not far from the initial fossil find, that had a distinctive V shape and thus differed markedly from the parabolic shape of the jaws of members of the human lineage. He soon repudiated his belief in Ramapithecus as a human ancestor, and the theory was largely abandoned by the early 1980s. Ramapithecus fossils subsequently were found to resemble those of the fossil primate genus Sivapithecus, which is now regarded as ancestral to the orangutan; the belief also grew that Ramapithecus probably should be included in the Sivapithecus genus.

 

It was at a later date in time that sahelanthropus was discovered, further vindicating the challenge that Wilson and Sarich first initiated.

 

Ill present a case for sahelanthropus tchadensis.  dated at 7 million years old.  It has a small brain capacity (maybe 1/4 the size of a human brain capacity). So its not human.  However, it has a flat face, small canines and a shortened palate, not elongate like modern day apes. Apes snouts can stick out, they have larger canines than we do and their palates are more elongate. So in that regard its more human like.  Though it also has this large brow, more ape like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

I could name a handful, but this seems like a good starting point.

Oh ah, one other thing, the foramen magnum. Kind of a focal point for anthropologists.  Its position in the skull indicates that the spinal column was in a more vertical direction, which is more human like than say, a chimpanzee, indicating that it likely stood upright.

So it has features that definitely make it different than modern day apes, but it certainly isnt fully human either. Just kind of a mix.

Image

Foramen magnum^

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

https://biologos.org/common-questions/does-the-cambrian-explosion-pose-a-challenge-to-evolution/

Thought I should reveal something interesting into the thread. The Cambrian Explosion, an event that breaks Darwinism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
36 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

The Cambrian Explosion, an event that breaks Darwinism.

No, it doesn't. From the article you linked:

Quote

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

The Cambrian explosion and the appearance of major classes spans tens of millions of years. Trilobites don't appear until some 15 millions years after arthropod trace fossils. Early fossils that display morphological traits of worms and brachiopods predate full blown worms and brachiopods by millions of years. What appear to be coral and sponge spicules have been found millions of years before corals and sponges as well.

And these microscopic shelled fossils and trace fossils are plausible transitionals which predate the Cambrian explosion. Microscopic partial shelled organisms. Some appear to be precursors to sponges, and corals, others to mollusks. Their classification is ongoing.

Cloudinidae - Wikipedia

Sinotubulites - Wikipedia

“As a result, both organisms are important in analyses of the Cambrian explosion, as predation and the appearance of mineralised components are often cited as possible causes of the "explosion".

[2]

“Although not the first small shelly fossil to be found, Cloudina is one of the earliest and most abundant.

[32]

The evolution of external shells in the Late Ediacaranis thought to be a defence against predators, marking the start of an evolutionary arms race.

[32]

[33]

While predatory borings are common in Cloudinaspecimens, no such borings have been found in Sinotubulites, a similar shelly fossil sometimes found in the same beds. In addition, the diameters of borings in Cloudina are proportional to the sizes of specimens, which suggests that predators were selective about the size of their prey. These two indications that predators attacked selectively suggest the possibility of speciation in response to predation, which is often postulated as a potential cause of the rapid diversification of animals in the Early Cambrian.

[14]

Kirengellida - Wikipedia

Mobergella - Wikipedia [Possible mollusk]

“These fossils have conventionally been regarded as monoplacophoran molluscs, and possibly ancestral to gastropods or cephalopods.

[1]

https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/...

“The early record of the Cambrian Explosion is based on fossils - principally the appearance of mineralized skeletons and complex trace fossils. The typically tiny skeletal elements from this time are called "small shelly fossils." These constitute a highly varied assortment of sclerites, spicules, tubes, and shells, suggestive of several different types of animals. Unfortunately, many of the fossils remain poorly understood and are difficult to classify within known taxonomic groups.

main-qimg-e2c0f244971962f299dbc69f0b9d3f8f

Early Cambrian sclerite-bearing animals. 1, Siphogonuchites. 2, Hippopharangites. 3, Lapworthella. 4, Eccentrotheca. 5, 6, Microdictyon. 7, Tumulduria. 8, Scoponodus. 9, Jaw-like elements of Cyrtochites[Possible mollusk]. 10, Porcauricula, 11, Dermal element of Hadimopanella. 12, Cambroclavus. 13, Paracarinachites. Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

main-qimg-7b64ee10548928d1e8772b94d67a20b1

Early tube-dwelling animals. 1, Cloudina, one of the earliest animals with a mineralized skeleton reinforced with calcite (late Neoproterozoic). 2, Aculeochrea, with an aragonite-reinforced tube (Precambrian-Cambrian boundary beds). 3, Hyolithellus, an animal reinforcing its tube with calcium phosphate (early Cambrian). 4, Olivooides, possibly a thecate scyphozoan polyp. 5, Pre-hatching embryo of Olivooides. Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

main-qimg-19afdb9928b67dc8bf3f512114442116

Early Cambrian shell-bearing animals. 1, Archaeospira, a possible gastropod. 2, Watsonella, a possible mollusc. 3, Cupitheca. 4, 5, Aroonia, a probable stem-group brachiopod. 6, 7, Conch and operculum of Parkula, a hyolith. Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018216302243

Here we present the first and earliest indisputable record of hexactinellid spicules in the lowest Cambrian, Terreneuvian, below the small shelly fossil Anabarites trisulcatusProtohertzina anabaricaassemblage zone (Zone I). Spicules recovered from cherts of the lowest Yanjiahe Formation in the Yichang, Hubei province, South China, include monaxons, diaxons, triaxons, and that are all siliceous in composition. This earliest record of silica

biomineralization by filter feeding metazoan suggests sponges have contributed to the cycling of silica in the oceanic system as early as the beginning of the Phanerozoic. These results, along with a review of previously reported sponge occurrences, suggest a two-step evolution on sponges of the early Cambrian.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeocyatha

Many of these microscopic fossils are difficult to assign to groups. Some appear to be sponge like spicules and bivalves. Some have qualities of mollusks, some of worms.

And Eventually fossils have to fade away as you go back in time. We have these fossils that predate the Cambrian explosion.

But fossils can't go back forever. If hypothetically, life started out without shells and bones, at some point, we wouldn't expect ancestral fossils to appear. Especially when you get back into Precambrian igneous rocks which are essentially cooled magma. Nobody would expect fossils to be found in magma.

Nobody would expect non-shelled arthropods to fossilized prior to the cambrian explosion and evolution of shells, which they do not, however their footprints doappear millions of years before the explosion, which tells us that they were alive and they were evolving, the shelled bodies just didn't fossilized because they didn't have shells.

main-qimg-13b8ca459d9c703a3f0740292c5d03ca
Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

One last post just so it's on the record:

Regarding the Cambrian explosion, life didn't instantaneously appear. The Cambrian explosion spans tens of million years of strata (and longer depending on where you draw your line with respect to the appearance of organisms). The theory of evolution has no issue with the Cambrian explosion, as the explosion spans such an extraordinary long period of time. We consider it an explosion because tens of millions of years in a geological sense is a relatively brief amount of time (at least when you're looking at it through just a handfull of formations), however with respect to biological evolution, tens of millions of years is an extraordinarily long amount of time and plenty enough for evolution to occur.

In reality, soft bodied organisms and microscopic shelled organisms predate the cambrian explosion as well, and actually there are arthropod trackways and trace fossils predating arthropod fossils of the explosion by some ten million years.

Further, there are small, brachiopods, worms, corals, anabarites, archaeocyathans and other fossils that predate the cambrian explosion. Not including the ediacaran biota, sinotubilites and cloudina.

The older you go back in time, the more recycled the rock is, the smaller the animals are, and the less shelled material they have. And they and their tracks, fade away through time.

The cambrian explosion is considered to be the product of an evolutionary arms race, it is record of an exponential development of traits, but it certainly was not some instantaneous appearance of everything. And this arms race, further occurred in conjunction with geologic events such as the rifting of rodinia and the end of a great ice age, which have been proposed as possible explanations for its occurrence.

But also, I'll just add again that the theory of evolution is something describes how life evolves over time, after life is already present. Even if hypothetically all life instantly appeared 530 million years ago, this wouldn't disprove the theory. In reality most of the theory is understood through evidence between that 530 million year point in time, to now. What happened before then is just additional information. Just the same, it is irrelevant to the theory, whether life forms in a primordial puddle, whether aliens spawns life, or whether God created, because regardless of any of these options of how life first came to be, life still evolves.

Cambrian Explosion

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.”

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@iCenozoic thanks for tagging me and sorry for not responding. Even though I studied Biology, I didn't specialize in this field, so I feel it is wrong for me to go too much into it. So I hope that somebody more qualified to speak on the behalf of the anti-darwinists could talk. Thank you. And if I get any ideas I'll let you know. I personally am convinced by the following, and so am curious to see somebody like Pye discuss this with you directly. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

@iCenozoic thanks for tagging me and sorry for not responding. Even though I studied Biology, I didn't specialize in this field, so I feel it is wrong for me to go too much into it. So I hope that somebody more qualified to speak on the behalf of the anti-darwinists could talk. Thank you. And if I get any ideas I'll let you know. I personally am convinced by the following, and so am curious to see somebody like Pye discuss this with you directly. 

 

Lloyd Anthony Pye Jr. (September 7, 1946 – December 9, 2013) was an American author and paranormal researcher best known for his promotion of the Starchild skull.[1][2] He claimed it was the relic of a human-alien hybrid,[3] although genetic testing showed it to be from a human male.[4] He also promoted the ideas that cryptozoological creatures such as Bigfoot are real and that aliens intervened in human development.[5][6]

 

if there were ever such a thing as a qualified "anti-darwinist", it certainly wouldn't be this guy.

where do you even hear about this stuff? Is there an encyclopedia somewhere filled with bizarre conspiracy theories?  I'm worried that this guy will start talking about how the "starchild" alien-human hybrid species built the pyramids in 10,000bc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Lloyd Anthony Pye Jr. (September 7, 1946 – December 9, 2013) was an American author and paranormal researcher best known for his promotion of the Starchild skull.[1][2] He claimed it was the relic of a human-alien hybrid,[3] although genetic testing showed it to be from a human male.[4] He also promoted the ideas that cryptozoological creatures such as Bigfoot are real and that aliens intervened in human development.[5][6]

 

if there were ever such a thing as a qualified "anti-darwinist", it certainly wouldn't be this guy.

where do you even hear about this stuff? Is there an encyclopedia somewhere filled with bizarre conspiracy theories?  I'm worried that this guy will start talking about how the "starchild" alien-human hybrid species built the pyramids in 10,000bc. 

Yes I think he is quite close to the truth. That's just me, and I believe that entities were used by God to engineer us uniquely, and not via gradual evolution from other species. The biggest proof is that there is no missing link when it comes to knowledge of good and evil either, or morality. 

I also believe in Bigfoots, and even trained a Kung Fu style called Tong Bei at its location of origin in Xi'an China, where they actually based the entire style on long white haired Jeti fighting style. Anyway, where do I get my theories from? From a long line of spiritual and mental travels outside the box of mainstream programmed mind controlled limits.

In any case, Loyd talked mostly from the perspective of fossils, so it should be fun for you some day insha Allah. Maybe one day I'll decide to specialize in this field, but at the moment I have other interests that Trump this one. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, notme said:

From the article you linked:

Yes I am aware the article I linked held the mainstream conformist view. But it was only meant as a hint. The real laundry is done by scientists like David Berlinski and Steven Meyer, to name a couple of the foremost. They can be found on youtube or on discovery institute's website. They really wipe the floor with it on this one.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
Quote

 

 

Image 1

Image 2

I made a post about the fossil succession on another forum and figured I would share here as well.

I could have went into more detail on the bones themselves but the purpose of the post wasn't really to describe the fossils but rather it was for the purpose of giving a broader understanding of how we understand common descent And what makes the theory of evolution such a robust theory:

 

"

Regarding whale evolution, it's also worth looking at the fossil succession of cetaceans.

Notice how cetaceans don't appear in the fossil succession anywhere in the hadean or archean, proterozoic, Cambrian, ordovician, silurian, devonian, carboniferous (Mississippian or Pennsylvanian), permian, Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous.

And nowhere in between any of these.

They appear at a later point in time that is consistent with the theory of evolution.

Triangular serrated sharp teeth, much like other aquatic proto whales, a long conical head, found in lacustrine prehistoric river beds of Pakistan. This is Pakicetus. 50 million years ago.

You mentioned larger aquatic predators, but this animals wasn't swimming in the deep ocean, it would have been near shallow streams and rivers where much like bears, it could take a brief dip in the water to catch fish.

Ambulocetus, the latter transitional of Pakistan (among several others), was much larger, some 5-10 feet in length, triangle shaped teeth much like Pakicetus, the long conical head, a long slender body like a crocodile. It's spine resembles that of prehistoric whales in that it could, much like a dolphin, undulate up and down through water. And again, wasn't a deep marine animal, but rather has been observed in freshwater environments and shallow marine environments (no battling of giant sharks necessary). We aren't just making up the animals environment, the animal is found in strata of their respective environments, so we know where these animals lived and clearly their sizes didn't affect their ability to live near and within lakes and streams, 45-50 million years ago.

The next popular of the group rodhocetus, again with the long conical head and triangular teeth, long slender body, but larger still growing some 10-15 feet in length. Only now it's vertebra and skull have fused (it has no neck). A clearly aquatic animal, yet it still has 4 limbs and could walk on land. Now more whale-like than terrestrial tetrapod-like. 40-45 million years ago.

And we could keep going. There are probably at least 10 popular transitional of the sequence. Basilosaurus, Dorudon, takracetus, dalanistes etc.

But the point is that, once again, we have fossils that fit into the theory. We aren't finding these fossils in the silurian, or Triassic. No, they're in the eocene, after terrestrial mammals came to dominate post k-t boundary.

And again, it isn't about the quantity of fossils (even though we have many), but it's about the succession and how it matches genetic phylogenies, viral dna dna studies, biogeographical sequences, comparative anatomical phylogenies, protein phylogenies, etc. The whale sequence fits the same pattern predicted by the theory of evolution. Indeed, it was through the theory that these fossils were predicted to exist to begin with at the geologic time and location that they were.

American scientists didn't just wake up in the morning and say "oh I want to go dig for fossils in Pakistan just for fun", no, they had an objective to find these fossils based on a prediction, ie whales existed around 30 million years ago, and animals with terrestrial anatomical features, hoofed mammals with long conical heads, ungulates in particular appeared around 60 Mya, so the answer to how whales came to be, according to the theory, was presumably somewhere between 60-30 million years ago. And so it was.

Find the right age, go to strata of ancient stream beds and lakes, and there it is. Much like the discovery of tiktaalik.

"

 

 

time_scale (1).png

whale_evo (1).jpg

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 6/25/2020 at 3:03 PM, iCenozoic said:

they had an objective to find these fossils based on a prediction,

From my 'cynical' point of view, as long as both methods -or-more- are used then predictive prejudice will not divert away from academic reviews.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...