Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[Orogeny]

2. I don’t see rock strata equating to time- I see them more relevant as sedimentary deposits layed at generally the same time having more to do with specific gravity and sedimentary physics than they do with depth = time.

You would be incorrect. If that were the case, all sedimentary rocks would be grouped by lithology - ie all sandstones in one interval, all carbonates in another, all shales in another, all evaporites…oh, yeah. They are not deposited by gravitational settling.

You’ll note that generally no erosion appears between the layers- straight lines accross. If they were “time based” there would be erosion, and it would appear so “straight”. To me its more akin to a viniagrette bottle’s contents layed while wet… or during an unimagineable flood. (The kind of flood that could bury a 25 foot tall Tyrannosaur.)

I won’t note that at all based on my field studies. Sorry. Here are a couple of photos found with a quick Google search. Both are from geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/geol326/photos.html
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
By the way, the second photo is of a very famous (geologically speaking) location. This is the place where James Hutton came up with the concept of long time intervals in geology.

1. As for the martini, count me in.

I want a beer!

Peace

Tim

 

[Joe_Gloor]

1. My suppositions are that we don’t know, and that at best- we can guess. I think that both specialized creation and evolution should be two theories presented in the classroom with equal vigor…

Since none of us were there, science is allowed to make the best guess, because any theory, based on data, will be ‘self-corrected’ by the scientists who uncover more data in contradiction to the theory. That’s the scientific method. Of course, there are no reliable data for the specialized creation theory (whatever that means) and in fact, all reliable data points to evolution. I don’t think schools should be allowed to present theories in contradiction to current data.

2. I don’t see rock strata equating to time- I see them more relevant as sedimentary deposits layed at generally the same time having more to do with specific gravity and sedimentary physics than they do with depth = time. You’ll note that generally no erosion appears between the layers- straight lines accross. If they were “time based” there would be erosion, and it would appear so “straight”. To me its more akin to a viniagrette bottle’s contents layed while wet… or during an unimagineable flood. (The kind of flood that could bury a 25 foot tall Tyrannosaur.)

I’ll leave this to the geologists to refute since they are here and available, but I’m sure there is nothing to this ‘layering based on specific gravity’ theory.

3. As for the martini, count me in.

Gin or Vodka? Make mine Vodka (unless all you have is Gin).

 

[TobyLue]

But was it coming or going? Maybe it was in the process of turning into a fish?

 

[Joe_Gloor]

TobyLue:

But was it coming or going? Maybe it was in the process of turning into a fish?

If all there was, previous to this fossil were fish, then chances are pretty good that it was going (towards land).
Fossil whale ancestors were going towards water and developing fins but they existed as land animals first!

 

[JB]

Joe Gloor:

I believe that the Platypus is considered to be a marsupial…

Not a marsipial, a monotreme.

 

[2shelbys]

I have been staying away from these evolution threads because they are so pointless but I just had to comment on how amusing it is to still see people quoting talkorigins as proof of anything. As I have posted so many times before, even a brief review of talkorigins shows it to be nothing more than an endless parade of speculation. Every single article (especially those on supposed “transitions”) is full of “maybe”, “thought to be”, “possible”, “might indicate”, “believed to be”, “incomplete”, “gaps”, and other such comments. This is an inescapable fact that all evolution supporters here ignore. All of evolution is nothing more than a THEORY based totally on speculation. None of it has been proven, and talkorigins is the best proof of that.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

JB.:

Not a marsupial, a monotreme.

That’s right, thanks!
What are some marsupials?
Oppossum?

 

[Joe_Gloor]

2shelbys:

All of evolution is nothing more than a THEORY based totally on speculation. None of it has been proven, and talkorigins is the best proof of that.

Gravity is a theory, too, but I wouldn’t jump off the top of a tall building based on that…

 

[buffalo]

Joe Gloor:

Gravity is a theory, too, but I wouldn’t jump off the top of a tall building based on that…

but it is observable, repeatable and predictable.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

but it is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Hey, buffalo. Any idea why the paleontologists were looking for fossils in that area? I’ll give you a hint - it has to do with predictablility.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Hey, buffalo. Any idea why the paleontologists were looking for fossils in that area? I’ll give you a hint - it has to do with predictablility.

Peace

Tim

I wouldn’t have predicted that. However, it is self perpetuating to only look in areas that would guarantee your predictable success.

 

[Donald45]

ScottH:

Phil,
I think one thing we agree on is that there can be good scientific data IF there’s an ability for some in science to get past their zeal for disproving Christianity.%between%

This is by far the exception rather than the rule. Of the some three million working scientists who affirm biotic evolution, how many can you name who are actually engaged in some sort of specific campaign to “disprove Christianity”? Also, there is a vast difference between disproving “Christianity” and disproving *your particular chosen interpretation of Scripture *(that is, your personal theology). The two should not be equated.

One could easily paraphrase your comment quoted above: “…there can be good scientific data IF there’s an ability for some who claim to use science to get past their zeal for disproving evolution.”

Truly,
Don

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

I wouldn’t have predicted that. However, it is self perpetuating to only look in areas that would guarantee your predictable success.

Yeah, maybe they should have been looking in the Columbia River basalts for a fish/amphibian fossil.

Peace

Tim

 

[AquinaSavio]

2shelbys:

I have been staying away from these evolution threads because they are so pointless but I just had to comment on how amusing it is to still see people quoting talkorigins as proof of anything. As I have posted so many times before, even a brief review of talkorigins shows it to be nothing more than an endless parade of speculation. Every single article (especially those on supposed “transitions”) is full of “maybe”, “thought to be”, “possible”, “might indicate”, “believed to be”, “incomplete”, “gaps”, and other such comments. This is an inescapable fact that all evolution supporters here ignore. All of evolution is nothing more than a THEORY based totally on speculation. None of it has been proven, and talkorigins is the best proof of that.

It’s funny…what I have read of Charles Darwin’s book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection…, it is filled with these same words: “possibly,” “perhaps,” “it is then probable,” and so on…

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Yeah, maybe they should have been looking in the Columbia River basalts for a fish/amphibian fossil.

Peace

Tim

Or maybe take one of those national guard bulldozers and take a giant swath from east coast to west and see what turns up. It may be very surprising.

 

[2shelbys]

Joe Gloor:

Gravity is a theory, too, but I wouldn’t jump off the top of a tall building based on that…

Doing so would be proof positive that the “theory” of gravity is correct. There is no such proof of evolution so your post is self-defeating.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Or maybe take one of those national guard bulldozers and take a giant swath from east coast to west and see what turns up. It may be very surprising.

That would be cool!

Peace

Tim

 

[Donald45]

ScottH:

Tim,
Sometimes a “devout lack of religion” becomes a religion unto itself, and can be just as prejudicial as the other extreme.

You’re absolutely on target here, I agree. When Richard Dawkins uses science as a basis for making atheistic statements, he’s allowing his philosophy (or theology) to intrude into his articulation of science. To the degree that he does this, he engages in corrupt science (not to mention, in my view, poor theology). Likewise, when, for example, Duane Gish (or Hugh Ross, or William Dembski) uses “science” as a basis for making theistic statements, he’s allowing his theology (or philosophy) to intrude into his articulation of science. Gish’s error is as serious as Dawkins’. Simply put, one’s philosophical/theological beliefs should be left out of the scientific endeavor as much as possible. In this way, science works the same for the atheist as it does for the theist.

God bless,
Don

 

[Donald45]

ScottH:

The core question,
Does the similarity in traits characteristics show “transition”…or does it show the trademarks of one common designer? The answer is that neither you nor I know for sure.

You’re engaging in a false either/or fallacy here: “either common biological ancestry or a common Designer.” This is a totally unnecessary false dilemma. Why not affirm multiple levels of explanation, what theologian John Haught calls Explanatory Pluralism?

Here’s how it works. Say you ask me how it is that I was born with blue eyes. I can answer the question on various levels:

Level of Nature: “I have blue eyes due to my DNA, which I received from my parents through the material process of biological conception.”

Level of Supernature: “I have blue eyes due to the divine intention and activity of God the Creator.”

Neither of these answers necessarily cancels out the other. The problem comes when we attempt to inject an answer from one level of explanation into the discussion at another level of explanation, such as when one tries to answer a scientific question with a theological reply. To force a concept from the level of supernature into a discussion at the level of nature commits what philosophers call a category fallacy.

Now consider your “either/or” quoted above. Why not both a common biological ancestry and a divine Creator? Of course, science would only be equipped to deal with things at the level of nature (natural causes and effects), but this would not rule out a theological answer at the level of supernature. The supposed “conflict” between religion and science is completely contrived and wholly unnecessary.

Finally, you conclude that no one can know whether the biological world is the result of evolution or divine creation. Such an agnostic statement begs the question: Why then do you hold to a position that you’re willing to defend in a public forum, and attempt to “refute” evolution, when you admit that you “don’t know” which (or even whether) one is true? My own view is that *both *are true, each at its own level of explanation.

Truly,
Don

 

[Donald45]

buffalo:

but it is observable, repeatable and predictable.

You seem to be making the common mistake of reducing all “science” to “laboratory science.” However, many branches of science (e.g., aspects of geology, evolutionary biology, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, etc.) contain a historical element which is readily accessible to scientists.

Truly,
Don