Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: wmd_2008

Old news buddy. Our brains are the only brains on Earth that work like reptilians. Are we also related to reptiles?

A big fat lie. All mammals have a reptilian brain.

Thanks for displaying your ignorance before everyone. I think we are done with your incoherent ramblings

a reply to: JUhrman

I've been done. It's like arguing with a bunch of people who claim to know everything about everything. There is never a debate because both sides bring zero to the table. Yet, if someone sheds light on the fact that we know nothing they get ridiculed. Enjoy walking through life with your illusions of facts from fiction.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Barcs

You call yourself a "nobody"? Well, that's a shame. I can see why you believe you came from a ape now.

Ah okay. You are only here to belittle others and promote ignorance, rather than seek truth. Why hide behind the disguise of asking questions about evolution, if that is your true purpose here? You also make the assumption that I take your assertions seriously. I knew from the very first post you made in this thread, that you were just another science denier. Good luck to you. Maybe one day you'll sucker somebody into your worldview with faulty arguments and fallacies, but it's not going to work on the intelligent folks here that actually understand science, many of whom work in the field.

originally posted by: Answer
To all the folks throwing out the Cambrian Explosion nonsense as some sort of disproof of Evolution...

You DO realize that the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over a period of ~20 million years, right?


Furthermore, it's not as though all current species suddenly arrived during the Cambrian Explosion as some of you seem to suggest. Just a TINY BIT of education would go a long way in these discussions.

Thank you.
Part of me dies a little when i see threads such as these, so it is heartening to know that not all are kookidooks!

Ediacaran fauna, small shelly fossils, Vendian biota, PreCambrian biota and so on., as well as a search involving the terms "Seilacher + PreCambrian life"

Vendobionta and Psammocorallia: lost constructions of Precambrian evolution

The non-availability of biomineralized skeletons and low levels of predation led Vendian evolution along strange avenues. The Ediacara-type Vendobionta appear to represent a kingdom, in which foliate shapes, large sizes and the necessary compartmentalization were achieved by quilting of the skin rather than by multicellularity. Psammocorallia, in contrast, are interpreted as coelenterates that constructed an internal sand skeleton. Both were immobile soft-bottom dwellers that had high population densities, and both became preserved by obrutional accidents; thus they render ‘fossil snap shots’, in which the original distributional patterns, age structures and standing biomasses of populations are accurately recorded.

Biomat-related lifestyles in the Precambrian

The strange biota of Neoproterozoic sea bottoms become more understandable if we assume that otherwise soft sediments were sealed by firm and erosion-resistant biomats. This allowed "mat encrusters" (vendobionts; trilobozoan and other sponges) to get attached to sandy bottoms, and molluscan "mat scratchers" to scrape off an algal film, as if they were living on rocks. Minute conical "mat stickers" (Cloudina) probably required a sticky substrate to become stabilized in upright position. Horizontal burrows are interpreted as the works of worm-like "undermat miners." Only the latter lifestyle appears to go back to the Mesoproterozoic; the others emerged in Vendian times and virtually disappeared when matgrounds became restricted to hostile environments in the wake of the Cambrian ecological revolution.

I have a soft spot for Adolf Seilacher, having had the pleasure of meeting and learning from him.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: JUhrman

I've been done. It's like arguing with a bunch of people who claim to know everything about everything. There is never a debate because both sides bring zero to the table. Yet, if someone sheds light on the fact that we know nothing they get ridiculed. Enjoy walking through life with your illusions of facts from fiction.

Right and you are one of those people too.... You brought nothing new to the debate...we could just as easily argue that you claimed to know everything....in my first post I wrote we don't know the end result...and no one flamed me. No one on the planet knows 100% sure of anything in regards to evolution or god..no one...anyone who says they do is full of #. And that goes for both sides. And you will be enjoying the same illusions and facts from fiction.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Enjoy walking through life with your illusions of facts from fiction.

You don't have any idea what I believe in and are merely projecting when you claim I think I know all.

Also we pointed at all your incorrect claims and lies and each time you ignore it like it's not important. Yet it is, it shows what you think you know and understand, you don't.

a reply to: FearYourMind

Completely false. You can't even compare a biological process with a stellar process. Completely seperate fields studied done but very distinctly different professionals.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Its cute how you use data, of which the most recent portion is 40 years old, while claiming someone else has no clue. That's intellectually dishonest at best.

You do realize that phylum is a modern, man made classification system right? Its not natures creation, simply a way to separate, classify and organize data sets. in this case the various living organisms throughout geologic history. You keep harping on this point as if its your ace in the hole but anyone who's actually studied evolution knows its just your tell. You can't whine about how no new phyla have " popped" into existence since the Cambrian when the term is from the 19th century as opposed to the Cambrian. Get a library card and check out some books. It will do you a world of good. Your perspective is a little skewed.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Barcs

You call yourself a "nobody"? Well, that's a shame. I can see why you believe you came from a ape now.

Ah okay. You are only here to belittle others and promote ignorance, rather than seek truth. Why hide behind the disguise of asking questions about evolution, if that is your true purpose here? You also make the assumption that I take your assertions seriously. I knew from the very first post you made in this thread, that you were just another science denier. Good luck to you. Maybe one day you'll sucker somebody into your worldview with faulty arguments and fallacies, but it's not going to work on the intelligent folks here that actually understand science, many of whom work in the field.

I'm sorry, but the majority of intelligent ATS members left years ago. Sorry if I touched a nerve Barcs, but a science denier I am not and I'm tired of repeating my stance regarding the universe and evolution. I'll leave so you guys can share your infinite knowledge. I'll guarantee you this thread doesn't get humanity any closer to the answers. Even with all the so called "intelligent folks" who understand science. Good luck though.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

This time try answering the question as if you have actually read more than 5 words about evolution.

Dude, your posts alone give me all the theoretical knowledge I need, what you consider as failed threads, I consider a success, it's called planting seeds, some germinate others don't, I can see yours is dormant, and that's ok.

Actually my time on ATS has given me great insight into evolution, more so than any books I have read or even my own personal research, all these numerous post do is expand my knowledge, about the same as my knowledge expands if a watch a new Star Wars movie, it's not reality, but it is highly entertaining.

Thanks for contributing to the thread

Apparently the translation to this is "All my threads are trolling you guys simply because it entertains me to watch you get all self righteous about your false convictions".

Well done troll. Well done.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: FearYourMind

You can't even compare a biological process with a stellar process. Completely seperate fields studied done but very distinctly different professionals.

Once again the point is totally lost, reality is unaffected by how humans categorize and quantify different fields of science.

From energy to matter to the cosmological growth of the entire universe to our planet and abiogenesis, to the development of different species and there genders and the supporting fossil record, including there adaptation to where we are today, it's all linked together by one true reality.
A zillion speculations latter with 100 different fields of science with hypothesis and theories galore, will never change what that one true reality is.

So saying, " BUT, They are different fields of science" is the most irrelevant point in this whole debate, nobody is saying they haven't been classified and defined that way by humans. Reality still stands and it's all linked together.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Without understanding the creation of our universe, yet trying to understand our origins is like trying to skip to calculus in the 2nd grade with only adding and subtracting skills. You'll never get it that way. You have to understand the full process.

And the bold part explains so much here. Evolutionary theory doesn't actually study origins. On a basic level, its essentially a study of changes in allele frequencies over time. Its the study of change in biological organisms over time. Not the origins of life. Perhaps its YOU who needs to better understand the processes. Trying to add on and explain why you feel it should be a certain way isn't going to change the science behind any of this, the scientific method or the doing the research.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: wmd_2008

Old news buddy. Our brains are the only brains on Earth that work like reptilians. Are we also related to reptiles?

Technically yes. Reptiles and Mammals share a common ancestor in synapsids.

Oh and since its your claim, you have a citation for your assertion the humans have the only brains that work like a reptiles right?

a reply to: peter vlar

Philosophical debate that is sincere is not trolling.
Sometimes the reactions can be entertaining as well.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well, is this forum all about my theory now? I'm wanting to hear some of your intelligent insights. It's been said already that I am a d**khead, ignorant and I've been repeatedly ridiculed for what I've shared. So sorry if I sound like a d**khead, but I was kind of blind sided by the lack of respect and civil discussion I was hoping to have. So what if you disagree. Such negative energy and it's contagious.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: wmd_2008

Old news buddy. Our brains are the only brains on Earth that work like reptilians. Are we also related to reptiles?

Technically yes. Reptiles and Mammals share a common ancestor in synapsids.

Oh and since its your claim, you have a citation for your assertion the humans have the only brains that work like a reptiles right?

No I was wrong about that. All mammals do. Not just humans.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I certainly believe in adaptation and a certain level of species drift. I also believe dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans and when they died they left fossils. What I don't believe is that non-organic matter spontaneously became organic and then spontaneously became a one celled organism, then it in turn over millions of years evolved into both genders in every species until humanity happened.

None of the compounds hypothesized in abiogenesis or panspermia are inorganic molecules though. If the foundation of the premise is incorrect this is one of the few instances where I will say its OK to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I have threads on both those topics right now, but this one is on fossils
If that did happen there would be millions of missing link skeletal remains of both species and genders in between.

Fossilization in and of itself is an extremely rare occurrence requiring very rare and precise conditions to occur at all. In addition to the rarity of the fossil record, literally every single fossil is in a state of transition. There are multiple variations of H. Erectus from the same time frame with variations in morphology. Humans of today are not the same as 70 KA let alone the earliest H. Sapiens from nearly 200 KA

And what do we have today for the fossil record, not that. And even the carbon dating is flawed, it's not 100% accurate.

We do have what you refuse to accept. You simply aren't versed enough in the minutiae to realize it. And carbon dating?! Really? Its no good on organics from anything over 60 KA(I'm not fond of it beyond 40ish but that's just me). It can't be used on any fossils period as fossilization mineralized all organic material over time, let alone fossils millions of years old.

As an example, this guy if you found his skeletal remains from 40 million years ago, it could be thought to be the ancestor to a much bigger dinosaur,

Not likely. The dinosaurs were gone by 40 MA and this guy hadn't existed prior to 3.8-4 MA give or take. Even if there weren't issues with the time frame, why exactly would a Komodo Monitor be confused for the ancestor of a larger dinosaur?

in the evolutionary line of development, but he actually isn't, but he stayed the same, 40 million years latter he is still the same.

Haven't stayed the same for 4 MA let alone 40. They have been pretty stable for the last 800KA though but that doesn't get into their predecessors who thrived in Australia and were up to 3x larger.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: peter vlar

Philosophical debate that is sincere is not trolling.
Sometimes the reactions can be entertaining as well.

Here is a good article for your thread.

Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution

Source

They even get into and debunk the often mentioned Whale land to water scenario cited by evolutionists,

Whale evolution now runs into a severe problem. The fossil record requires that the evolution of whales from small land mammals would have to have taken place in less than 10 million years. That may sound like a long time, but it actually falls dramatically short, especially given that whales have small population sizes and long generation times. Biologist Richard Sternberg has examined the requirements of this transition mathematically and puts it this way: "Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time."

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: peter vlar

Well, is this forum all about my theory now?

Not at all but I would be remiss to ignore incorrect data and not attempt to correct it.

I'm wanting to hear some of your intelligent insights. It's been said already that I am a d**khead, ignorant and I've been repeatedly ridiculed for what I've shared.

Please don't put words in my mouth as I've not referred to you in such terms.

So sorry if I sound like a d**khead, but I was kind of blind sided by the lack of respect and civil discussion I was hoping to have.

No offense but if you come in and start posting incorrect or factually lacking information, you've got to be prepared to be called out on it. Instead of being pissy and getting mad, use it as an opportunity to learn something. Engage in some due diligence and try to learn the truth behind the science involved.

So what if you disagree.

That's like getting angry if you demand that everyone accepts your incorrect answer and that we must all now agree that 2+2=5 and someone disagrees with you over such.

Such negative energy and it's contagious.

Only if you allow it to be.