Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[stoplooklisten]

stoplooklisten:

However, the consensus of multiple sources in the Catholic Tradition including the early Church Fathers, St. Augustine, … have been consistently to affirm Genesis including completed Creation in six-days.

I suspect you are in error here. Augustine was a proponent of instantaneous creation in a lot less than 144 hours. A minority position to be sure, but one which more accurately reflects the Big Bang.

Augustine’s views varied over time. He touched upon Genesis and Creation in multiple writings from different periods of his life. He left an unfinished commentary on Genesis. Augustine affirmed Creation ex nihilo or Creation from nothing by the Word of God. Augustine views on a literal six days were nuanced.

St. Augustine was converted and baptized by St. Ambrose of Milan whose views on Creation can also be considered and which will affirm the Church’s traditional understanding of six day Creation. Completed creation across six days followed by a day of rest seems to preclude ongoing “creation” by evolution across millions of years and still continuing today.

 

[rossum]

Completed creation across six days followed by a day of rest seems to preclude ongoing “creation” by evolution across millions of years and still continuing today.

Fine. Then show us any mammal fossil from the Cambrian. We have mammals today, so according to you there have always been mammals from the first week life appeared on earth. We know there was life on earth during the Cambrian, and that period lasted longer then one week.

Alternatively show me a bird fossil (from day five) from before the first land animals (from day six). I will allow you some flexibility here, so the bird merely has to be within a two million years of the first land animal, say Hylonomus.

I am Buddhist, so if you want me to accept something then quoting non-Buddhist scripture will only convince me if you can find a matching passage in the Tripitaka, or supporting material evidence.

If you are going to use such a woodenly literal approach to Genesis you will find a complete lack of supporting evidence.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Fine. Then show us any mammal fossil from the Cambrian.

The first fossils in the record of the “Cambrian explosion” are marine animals exclusively. It is only in the higher layers that fossils of land animals are found.

Do you assume that the first layer above “the Great Unconformity” shows all life forms at the time? It doesn’t. It only shows what was buried first in the rapid sedimentation of the great flood and that’s the creatures from the submerged shoreline floor.

Trilobites from the Cambrian period were buried rapidly and well-preserved fossils show evidence of advanced, compound eyes.

 

[rossum]

The first fossils in the record of the “Cambrian explosion” are marine animals exclusively. It is only in the higher layers that fossils of land animals are found.

Where are the bird fossils then? Both birds and marine animals were created on day five. Show us a Cambrian bird please.

 

[buffalo]

During a session at the Royal Society meeting a few years back they were on the edge of declaring natural selection to be an intelligent force, but then broke for tea, to avoid going further.

 

[PickyPicky]

Are you able to answer the question of how many archetypes there were, and when they appeared?

 

[buffalo]

Are you able to answer the question of how many archetypes there were, and when they appeared?

post #172 …

 

[rossum]

post #172 …

Nope. Post #172 is by PickyPicky. Your post is #173:

The tree of life has fallen and science is now looking at a tangled bush. As we fine tune our genetic search capabilities we will find out. Each time a lineage splits some information is lost, resulting in a more brittle organism less capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions. Even temporary short term benefits do not stop this.

That gives neither the number of archetypes nor a date.

Looks like you still only have personal opinion unsupported by any evidence. That will not get you very far in science.

 

[buffalo]

That gives neither the number of archetypes nor a date.

Looks like you still only have personal opinion unsupported by any evidence. That will not get you very far in science.

I will borrow from the evo’s. We are working on it. The gaps are closing.

Do you agree that genetics will be more precise than homology?

 

[buffalo]

Looks like you still only have personal opinion unsupported by any evidence.

Huh? The tree is gone. Have you looked at the tangled bush lately?

We still have to account for HGT.

 

[rossum]

I will borrow from the evo’s. We are working on it. The gaps are closing.

You have nothing. It is very obvious that you have nothing. Come back when you have some evidence.

If you claim the existence of archetypes then you will need to produce evidence of numbers and timescales.

I notice that you have quietly dropped my enquiry about marsupials, kangaroos, wombats and koalas. You are not making your case very well here.

Huh? The tree is gone. Have you looked at the tangled bush lately?

We still have to account for HGT.

How do your archetypes fit in with the “tangled bush” and HGT? Are the archetypes “tangled”? Do they transfer genetic material between each other via HGT?

You need to think about how these ideas you push out work together.

 

[buffalo]

I notice that you have quietly dropped my enquiry

The pot calling the kettle black… what post are you referring to?

You asked about the modern synthesis. I presented a paper that summarizes the issues. Did you read it?

 

[buffalo]

How do your archetypes fit in with the “tangled bush” and HGT? Are the archetypes “tangled”? Do they transfer genetic material between each other via HGT?

You need to think about how these ideas you push out work together.

What? The archetype is the original in that line.

The tangled bush makes it harder to find the true genetic ancestor. As I stated previously, we will fine tune this to give a clearer image.

So, once again, is genetics better than homology? Yes or no.

 

[rossum]

what post are you referring to?

My question about the archetypes for marsupials. You have avoided it long enough that you can reasonably appear to have forgotten it. I have asked it more than once, starting with post #160. In order to refresh your memory, here it is again:

For example, is there a single marsupial archetype or are there separate archetypes within the marsupials for kangaroos, wombats, koalas etc? Naturally you will have supporting evidence for what you tell us. Otherwise all you have is personal opinion, and that does not get you very far in science.

Since you specifically asked about this question, I will expect a specific answer.

What? The archetype is the original in that line.

The tangled bush makes it harder to find the true genetic ancestor. As I stated previously, we will fine tune this to give a clearer image.

How can the archetype be the “original” when the tangled bush means that there are multiple ancestors, with genes coming from different organisms via HGT? Your ideas are inconsistent here. HGT and the tangled bush mean that there are multiple ancestors for every living species when you go far enough back. Effectively there is a single original population covering a single ‘Life on Earth’ archetype, and all modern organisms are descended from that single archetype by various routes.

Your archetypes need clear isolated non-intersecting lines of descent. Your tangled bush and HGT give unclear intersecting lines of descent, the antithesis of what your claim of archetypes requires.

 

[buffalo]

Your archetypes need clear isolated non-intersecting lines of descent. Your tangled bush and HGT give unclear intersecting lines of descent, the antithesis of what your claim of archetypes requires.

What don’t you understand about the archetype being the first? The tangling comes downline.

You promote 1 archetype. The only difference is I promote more than 1. You like universal common descent. I like common descent.

BTW - it is not MY tangled bush. Are you denying it exists?

So, once again, is genetics better than homology? Yes or no.

 

[buffalo]

For example, is there a single marsupial archetype or are there separate archetypes within the marsupials for kangaroos, wombats, koalas etc?

I do not think they have a single archetype. BTW - Convergent evolution is an argument for front loading.

Gene expression between marsupials and placentals is the difference, which fits well with reproductive isolation and lineage splitting.

 

[buffalo]

A paper of interest.

The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg. Just as differentiation
involves the ordered derepression of pre-existing information, so then I propose, did evolution proceed by a similar means. Viewed in this way, ontogeny and phylogeny become part of the same organic continuum utilizing similar mechanisms for their expression. For those who may be unfamiliar with the history of evolutionary thought, these notions may seem bizarre, but they are in no way original with me. I only propose to extend them somewhat further.

https://jadavison.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/prescribed_evolutionary_hypothesis.pdf

A few quotes lend credence to IDvolution:

Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Law, in which he presented several examples of what he called phylogenetic acceleration or the premature appearance of advanced features in primitive organisms. Among these were the development of a true placenta in certain sharks (Musteluslaevis), the ciliate protozoon (Diplodinium ecaudatum) in which whole “organ systems” are elaborated within the confines of a single cell, the possession of pneumatic bones in certain flightless reptiles and many other examples of the appearance of advanced features even in organisms for which there is no apparent adaptive significance. Generalizing from several such examples, Berg concluded: “Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.” (Berg [1969] page 406) In the same volume he quoted William Bateson. : ”Finally, Bateson likewise (1914) inclines to the view that the entire process of evolution may be regarded as ‘an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present’.” (Berg, page 359). Pierre Grasse (1977, page 209) reached similar conclusions, apparently independently. “However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind…”

 

[rossum]

What don’t you understand about the archetype being the first? The tangling comes downline.

If the tangling is downline, and modern species are after the tangling then modern species are descended from more than one archetype, because of the tangling. Modern grasses are after the tangling so are, say, derived from archetypes AT#23, AT#55 and AT#104 because those three archetypes were tangled during the tangling and the result was grasses. Hence modern grasses are not the descendants of a single archetype but of multiple archetypes post tangling.

I do not think they have a single archetype.

You “think”? To me that means you do not have any evidence, merely a personal opinion. Come back when you have the evidence. Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath.

 

[buffalo]

You “think”? To me that means you do not have any evidence, merely a personal opinion.

The literature points to convergent evolution.

 

[rossum]

The literature points to convergent evolution.

Evolution is both convergent and divergent. Bats and birds have similar wing shapes because of the physics of flight. Sharks and dolphins have similar body shapes because of the physics of water.

Giraffe necks have diverged from other mammal necks. Snakes have diverged from other tetrapods by losing their legs.

There are examples of both convergence and divergence to be found.

I see you still have no answer to our questions.