Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Study finds twist in human evolution


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#16    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 10 October 2007 - 03:52 AM

Quote

It's interesting how when you start out with a conclusion firmly grasped, no matter what data you find, no matter how obtuse your logic has to be, the data will fit the conclusion.



ah, haha, ha.

Well, that sure gave me a good laugh.

Whew, can see that as a Mastercard commercial. You know something like:

Cost of the internet: 45 dollars a month
Cost of home built computer 1200 dollars
Seeing Iams tell someone about "pre-drawn conclusions"?
Priceless.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#17    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 19 October 2007 - 01:44 AM

weareallsuckers on Aug 9 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

I read the whole article and used it in another post to demonstate how a single fossil find at any time can change the whole evolutionary ladder. I am sick of hearing "well, they would have found fossils by now.." "we know by the fossil record..."
The fossil record is incomplete and the whole human evolutionary chain is up for grabs. I think it's only a matter of time before something BIG is found that really challenges what we think we know.

        First off- evolution is a word with many meanings that most people will define as "change overtime"; in other words the present is different from the past-no one will argue with evolution at this level.  Some biologists define it as "a change in gene frequencies over generations" or "cumulative change over time", which also is uncontroversial.  My grandparents' genes are different from my parents' genes and my genes are different from my parents' genes.  So what?  A change in genes occurs every time a child is born; breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries, but always within existing species.  Point being lets correctly define this as Darwinism.
       The fossil record points to Creation.  What happens to a fish when it dies?  It is eaten or it decays.  In order for it to become a fossil, it must happen rather quickly.  To make a fossil requires  sediment and pressure.  I don't know any better explanation of a fish with a half eaten fish in it's mouth could be a fossil, unless a world-wide devastating flood happened like the account in Genesis.  There are also fossils of a fish in the process of giving  birth and fish with food in it still digesting.  Obviously this could not have been done in millions of years.  
       Technology has allowed us to more accurately see a cell.  In Darwin's days, he could not see the complexity of a cell or the intricate design it has.  1x10 to the 4.6 millionth power is the odds of the simpliest cell coming together randomly.  1x10 to the 18th power is considered impossible to scientists.  Think about it.
        



#18    jdlsmith

jdlsmith

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 20 October 2007 - 09:49 AM

Apostle on Oct 18 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

Think about it.


And there's the tough thing.


#19    Cradle of Fish

Cradle of Fish

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,583 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." - Dr. Johnson

Posted 20 October 2007 - 10:40 AM

Apostle on Oct 19 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

First off- evolution is a word with many meanings that most people will define as "change overtime"; in other words the present is different from the past-no one will argue with evolution at this level.  Some biologists define it as "a change in gene frequencies over generations" or "cumulative change over time", which also is uncontroversial.  My grandparents' genes are different from my parents' genes and my genes are different from my parents' genes.  So what?  A change in genes occurs every time a child is born; breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries, but always within existing species.  Point being lets correctly define this as Darwinism.
       The fossil record points to Creation.  What happens to a fish when it dies?  It is eaten or it decays.  In order for it to become a fossil, it must happen rather quickly.  To make a fossil requires  sediment and pressure.  I don't know any better explanation of a fish with a half eaten fish in it's mouth could be a fossil, unless a world-wide devastating flood happened like the account in Genesis.  There are also fossils of a fish in the process of giving  birth and fish with food in it still digesting.  Obviously this could not have been done in millions of years.  
       Technology has allowed us to more accurately see a cell.  In Darwin's days, he could not see the complexity of a cell or the intricate design it has.  1x10 to the 4.6 millionth power is the odds of the simpliest cell coming together randomly.  1x10 to the 18th power is considered impossible to scientists.  Think about it.


How would a flood kill fish?

I am not a man, merely a parody of one.


#20    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,482 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 20 October 2007 - 03:10 PM

Apostle on Oct 19 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

First off- evolution is a word with many meanings that most people will define as "change overtime"; in other words the present is different from the past-no one will argue with evolution at this level.  Some biologists define it as "a change in gene frequencies over generations" or "cumulative change over time", which also is uncontroversial.  My grandparents' genes are different from my parents' genes and my genes are different from my parents' genes.  So what?  A change in genes occurs every time a child is born; breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries, but always within existing species.  Point being lets correctly define this as Darwinism.
       The fossil record points to Creation.  What happens to a fish when it dies?  It is eaten or it decays.  In order for it to become a fossil, it must happen rather quickly.  To make a fossil requires  sediment and pressure. I don't know any better explanation of a fish with a half eaten fish in it's mouth could be a fossil, unless a world-wide devastating flood happened like the account in Genesis.  There are also fossils of a fish in the process of giving  birth and fish with food in it still digesting.  Obviously this could not have been done in millions of years.  
       Technology has allowed us to more accurately see a cell.  In Darwin's days, he could not see the complexity of a cell or the intricate design it has.  1x10 to the 4.6 millionth power is the odds of the simpliest cell coming together randomly.  1x10 to the 18th power is considered impossible to scientists.  Think about it.

I found the fish eating fish and giving birth interesting so did some investigating. Here's an explanation for the fish giving birth:

Bone structure is well preserved, especially in the limestone horizons. Adult and juvenile ichthyosaurs are famous from this deposit, in some spectacular cases the young are preserved in the belly region (up to 13 in total). These would have been given birth to when they reached 50-85 cm long; indeed one specimen shows a female in the process of giving birth, probably an unsuccessful labour. The unusual frequency of pregnant females may indicate that this was an ichthyosaur spawning ground. Ichthyosaurs fed on cephalopods, fish and occasionally the young of smaller ichthyosaur species as evidenced by stomach contents. The Posidonia Shale has also been important in increasing our knowledge of the soft biology of ichthyosaurs. Soft tissue preservation indicates that they possessed dorsal fins, fleshy pectoral fins and broad fish-like tails. Interestingly some of the outlines remain perfect despite disarticulation of the skeletal elements.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/l...ia/fossils.html

An unsuccessful labour. Died in childbirth.

Here's the interesting fossil eating a fish: (and a wonderful fossil it is too)

I can think of a few reasons for a fish's death midway through eating  a smaller fish. The predator fish died through choking (aspiration) or the prey fish was poisonous to the larger fish or maybe the prey fish has small spines that jammed in the predator fish's mouth to prevent it being swallowed.

I found some other pictures of fish eating fish and this website   http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleri...enRiverFish.htm  
If anyone can find any more information on aspiration in fish occurs I'd appreciate a link.

Attached Files


In an mmm bop it's gone...

#21    jdlsmith

jdlsmith

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 21 October 2007 - 08:22 AM

Good explanations for a fish dying while giving birth or while eating... but in those cases, the fish would normally get eaten itself, once dead.  Decay is almost universal, fossilization takes exceptional circumstances...  like extreme and rapid dehydration or intense pressure and absence of oxygen, possibly a few other things...  These don't happen to fish in normal circumstances.  Massive layers of sediment rapidly burying a fish would do it...  can you think of anything else?

JS

Edit: switched a comma to 'or' to clarify two possible different methods.

Edited by jdlsmith, 21 October 2007 - 08:23 AM.


#22    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 22 October 2007 - 03:23 PM

jdlsmith on Oct 21 2007, 02:22 AM, said:

Good explanations for a fish dying while giving birth or while eating... but in those cases, the fish would normally get eaten itself, once dead.  Decay is almost universal, fossilization takes exceptional circumstances...  like extreme and rapid dehydration or intense pressure and absence of oxygen, possibly a few other things...  These don't happen to fish in normal circumstances.  Massive layers of sediment rapidly burying a fish would do it...  can you think of anything else?

JS

Edit: switched a comma to 'or' to clarify two possible different methods.


If you go back to that second link that weareallsuckers provided for the Green River fossils, the website provides a possible explaination for the way in which the fossil fish were preserved:

"The unusually excellent preservation of the Green River fish fossils is usually attributed to a combination of two factors: 1) a cold period during the Eocene that would have caused dead fish to sink faster due to a less inflated swim bladder; and 2) the great depth of the lakes and the consequent anoxic conditions that would have often prevented scavengers from disturbing the carcasses."

source: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/GreenRiverSite.htm



"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#23    1.618

1.618

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northampton, Northamptonshire, England.

Posted 22 October 2007 - 03:31 PM

Shaftsbury)

"The unusually excellent preservation of the Green River fish fossils is usually attributed to a combination of two factors: 1) a cold period during the Eocene that would have caused dead fish to sink faster due to a less inflated swim bladder; and 2) the great depth of the lakes and the consequent anoxic conditions that would have often prevented scavengers from disturbing the carcasses."[/i]
source: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/GreenRi, said:



could vacuum assist in the fossilisation process?


#24    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 22 October 2007 - 04:40 PM

1.618 on Oct 22 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

could vacuum assist in the fossilisation process?


Low atmospheric pressure in combination with low temperature will give you a mummy (freeze-dried), like the ones you find in the Andes.

But it is not the same process, and I assume you are talking about a man made fossil?

"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#25    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 22 October 2007 - 08:33 PM

Cradle of Fish on Oct 20 2007, 04:40 AM, said:

How would a flood kill fish?

   This flood was an entire canopy collapsing onto the earth and the great springs of the deep bursting forth.  The eruption of huge underground reservoirs of water, along with earthquakes and tidal waves would have buried fish and many other animals (land and sea).



#26    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 22 October 2007 - 09:42 PM

questionmark on Aug 9 2007, 09:09 AM, said:

And we have to agree there. The aim of evolution was not to create Homo Sapiens but to create surviving species. We are a by-product of survival. And we are at the top of the food chain (now) because we adapted best to changes.

    Adaptation and evolution are not the same.  Allow me to use this example of dogs.  Back when the dogs came off the ark, (they could have been any dogs- poodles, wolves, beagles, great hounds, anything it doesn't matter because they are all dogs with genes for all the varies types of dogs in their existing gene pool) they began to reproduce.  Soon, the dogs spread out, some went to cold climates and some to warmer climates.  Dogs with short fur and long fur went to the cold climate, but soon the short furred dogs died out and long furred became the dominant trait; they adapted because long fur already existed in their gene pool.  The dogs that went to the warmer climate adapted by having short fur become the dominant gene.  This could be considered survival of the fittest, though biologist generally refer to it as natural selection.
   Evolution speaks of mutations.  The difference between mutation and adaptation is that adaptation is a positive characteristic in an organism and already exist in the gene pool.  Mutations are random seldom constructive and create variations in the gene pool.  Evolutionists have ascribed wondrous powers to mutations, the ability to make new body parts and new animals, when in reality mutations are extremely dangerous and are wreaking havoc on the human race and other creatures.
    A quick question that I am seriously interested in finding out the answer to is, How do you explain us having evolved from monkeys if they are still around (and all the other animals)?  "We are a by-product of survival".  So are they, many animals have uniquely designed surviving traits.  They've adapted well, but they still haven't evolved.
    Obviously I support a God designing the whole earth and creating everything and if you have any questions on that or rebuttals I would surely like to hear them.
      



#27    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 22 October 2007 - 10:35 PM

Apostle on Oct 22 2007, 02:33 PM, said:

This flood was an entire canopy collapsing onto the earth and the great springs of the deep bursting forth.  The eruption of huge underground reservoirs of water, along with earthquakes and tidal waves would have buried fish and many other animals (land and sea).


Yes, it would have been one heck of a mess wouldn't it.

This is why I ask the question, so why doesn't the fossil record show such an event?


Edited for spelling

Edited by Shaftsbury, 22 October 2007 - 10:35 PM.

"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#28    AmazingAtheist

AmazingAtheist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • 'Where knowledge Ends, Religion Begins -- Benjamin Disraeli

Posted 23 October 2007 - 01:08 AM

Apostle on Oct 22 2007, 09:42 PM, said:

Adaptation and evolution are not the same.  Allow me to use this example of dogs.  Back when the dogs came off the ark, (they could have been any dogs- poodles, wolves, beagles, great hounds, anything it doesn't matter because they are all dogs with genes for all the varies types of dogs in their existing gene pool) they began to reproduce.  Soon, the dogs spread out, some went to cold climates and some to warmer climates.  Dogs with short fur and long fur went to the cold climate, but soon the short furred dogs died out and long furred became the dominant trait; they adapted because long fur already existed in their gene pool.  The dogs that went to the warmer climate adapted by having short fur become the dominant gene.  This could be considered survival of the fittest, though biologist generally refer to it as natural selection.
   Evolution speaks of mutations.  The difference between mutation and adaptation is that adaptation is a positive characteristic in an organism and already exist in the gene pool.  Mutations are random seldom constructive and create variations in the gene pool.  Evolutionists have ascribed wondrous powers to mutations, the ability to make new body parts and new animals, when in reality mutations are extremely dangerous and are wreaking havoc on the human race and other creatures.
    A quick question that I am seriously interested in finding out the answer to is, How do you explain us having evolved from monkeys if they are still around (and all the other animals)?  "We are a by-product of survival".  So are they, many animals have uniquely designed surviving traits.  They've adapted well, but they still haven't evolved.
    Obviously I support a God designing the whole earth and creating everything and if you have any questions on that or rebuttals I would surely like to hear them.


Here is where you're knowledge of evolution is failing ..
We did NOT, And I repeat, DID NOT evolve from monkeys ..
We share a common ancestor with them -- And once branch are now monkeys are another branch called 'Humans'

(That was a VERY brief summary)

I suggest you re search this a little. You're local library should have some books on evolution  .. (And in those books you will learn that Evolution isn't just random mutations ..)

Enlighten yourself.


`AA`


It is usually
When men are at their most religious
That they behave with the least sense
And the greatest cruelty.

--Ilka Chase


<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all</a>

Go to link to see the "Original" God Yahweh ..


Theory-- A logically coherent model well supported by evidence.

Evolution isn't just science, It's life. -- Joshua McLean

#29    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 23 October 2007 - 04:42 AM

Apostle on Oct 18 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

First off- evolution is a word with many meanings that most people will define as "change overtime"; in other words the present is different from the past-no one will argue with evolution at this level.  Some biologists define it as "a change in gene frequencies over generations" or "cumulative change over time", which also is uncontroversial.  My grandparents' genes are different from my parents' genes and my genes are different from my parents' genes.  So what?  A change in genes occurs every time a child is born; breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries, but always within existing species.  Point being lets correctly define this as Darwinism.



Change in gene frequencies over time, more appropriately changes in allele frequencies over time. Evolution does not act on individuals so your point about your grand parents is moot and really not well thought out. Evolution only works on populations, over generations.

The word frequency should have clued you in on this. Frequency is the rate of occurrence in a population. Your own gene frequencies are 100% because you are all your own genes.

Apostle on Oct 18 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

The fossil record points to Creation.  What happens to a fish when it dies?  It is eaten or it decays.  In order for it to become a fossil, it must happen rather quickly.  To make a fossil requires  sediment and pressure.  I don't know any better explanation of a fish with a half eaten fish in it's mouth could be a fossil, unless a world-wide devastating flood happened like the account in Genesis.  There are also fossils of a fish in the process of giving  birth and fish with food in it still digesting.  Obviously this could not have been done in millions of years.


I would advise you to read up on fossilization and what the fossil record actually represents...

Apostle on Oct 18 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

Technology has allowed us to more accurately see a cell.  In Darwin's days, he could not see the complexity of a cell or the intricate design it has.  1x10 to the 4.6 millionth power is the odds of the simpliest cell coming together randomly.  1x10 to the 18th power is considered impossible to scientists.  Think about it.


No one said a cell had to come together randomly, evolution does not require something be a cell for it to act upon it. It requires replication/reproduction and inheritable (partially conserved) variation. Evolution also has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Do you want to cite how you came about these pseduostatistics? Maybe you should talk to someone who is really a scientist before you pull their considerations out of your ass.


QUOTE (Apostle)
Adaptation and evolution are not the same. Allow me to use this example of dogs. Back when the dogs came off the ark, (they could have been any dogs- poodles, wolves, beagles, great hounds, anything it doesn't matter because they are all dogs with genes for all the varies types of dogs in their existing gene pool) they began to reproduce. Soon, the dogs spread out, some went to cold climates and some to warmer climates. Dogs with short fur and long fur went to the cold climate, but soon the short furred dogs died out and long furred became the dominant trait; they adapted because long fur already existed in their gene pool. The dogs that went to the warmer climate adapted by having short fur become the dominant gene. This could be considered survival of the fittest, though biologist generally refer to it as natural selection.


Can I ask you a serious question? Do you biblical literalists, with your "high moral standards" no feel the slightest bit of guilt just making stuff up as you go along? I mean really, Is "thou shall not lie" on a list that is semi-important to you?

Most breeds of dogs arose through artificial selection, which can actually serve as a nice model for selection

QUOTE (Apostle)
The difference between mutation and adaptation is that adaptation is a positive characteristic in an organism and already exist in the gene pool. Mutations are random seldom constructive and create variations in the gene pool. Evolutionists have ascribed wondrous powers to mutations, the ability to make new body parts and new animals, when in reality mutations are extremely dangerous and are wreaking havoc on the human race and other creatures.


You are very confused. Mutations are not all bad, many are but not all of them. Do you know why? No? Ok, I'll tell you.

Most mutations are not beneficial because organisms are already adapted to their environments because of evolution. Kind of like the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it". Same thing here. Most mutations are neutral or maladaptive because a species existing at the current point in time means it is adapted to its environment. Environments change though and some mutations do give rise to things that benefit an organisms fitness. When this occurs this organism is more likely to pass on its genotype. If this genotype is the fittest then that genotype will be seen in a higher frequency within the population over generations.

Variation in the gene pool is a good thing. Species without much variation in their gene pool tend to die out. Population bottlenecks, genetic drift etc are not generally something you want to have to your species. While you argue mutations are bad, this is hardly the case. They do add variation and to top it off most get masked.

The part in bold there is really just nonsense.

QUOTE (Apostle)
A quick question that I am seriously interested in finding out the answer to is, How do you explain us having evolved from monkeys if they are still around (and all the other animals)? "We are a by-product of survival". So are they, many animals have uniquely designed surviving traits. They've adapted well, but they still haven't evolved.


I am sure you will most likely not listen to this, but I would feel as if I was somehow not being helpful in suggesting it. If you are really interested in biology and evolution I would advise you take evolutionary ecology class at a local college. Baring that, here are some book suggestions,

Mark Ridley, Evolution 3rd ed. (A bit lengthy but targeted at 400-500 level biology students, so requires a good foundation in biology as well as statistics and calc. but can answer most of your questions)

Mark Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. (A good read, delves into the origins and evolution of our species particularly, easier read then his other books)

Jerry Coyne's Speciation. (Details mechanisms with examples of speciation and the varying types of mechanisms that lead to speciation. Can get rather in depth, I believe it is aimed at early to mid level graduate students in biology).

James W. Valentine's Origin of Phyla. (Arguably the most respected and distinguished paleobiologist, unites many aspects of biology to explain).

Kirschner and Gerhart's The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma (Uses lots of molecular genetics to explain modes of adaptations and rise of complex parts, not to bad a read for people with decent understanding of chemistry and biology (decent being around a freshman-sophomore level))

Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. If you read no other book about science and evolution the rest of your life, make sure you read this. In fact I would advise everyone read this book, If you are unsure of who Mayr is wiki him. The book starts at Scala Naturae, Aristotle's Essentialism, then right up to modern evolutionary biology. Really everyone should read this book, evolutionist, creationists, IDist, UFO creationists etc!

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#30    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 24 October 2007 - 02:34 AM

Shaftsbury on Oct 22 2007, 05:35 PM, said:

Yes, it would have been one heck of a mess wouldn't it.

This is why I ask the question, so why doesn't the fossil record show such an event?


Edited for spelling

   1) The fossil record does show the event.  Evidence of Noah’s Flood can be seen all over the earth, from seabeds to mountaintops. Whether you travel by car, train, or plane, the physical features of the earth’s terrain clearly indicate a catastrophic past, from canyons and craters to coal beds and caverns. Some layers of strata extend acrosscontinents, revealing the effects of a huge catastrophe.
     The earth’s crust has massive amounts of layered sedimentary rock, sometimes miles (kilometers) deep! These layers of sand, soil, and material—mostly laid down by water—were once soft like mud, but they are now hard stone. Encased in these sedimentary layers are billions of dead things (fossils of plants and animals) buried very quickly. The evidence all over the earth is staring everyone in the face.

Hot, bubbling mud springs or volcanoes are found in New Zealand, Java and elsewhere, but these Wootton Bassett mud springs usually ooze slowly and are cold. However, in 1974 River Authority workmen were clearing the channel of a small stream in the area, known as Templar’s Firs, because it was obstructed by a mass of grey clay.2 When they began to dig away the clay, gray liquid mud gushed into the channel from beneath tree roots and for a short while spouted a third of a meter (one foot) into the air at a rate of about eight liters per second.
No one knows how long these mud springs have been there. According to the locals they have always been there, and cattle have fallen in and been lost! Consisting of three mounds each about 10 meters (almost 33 feet) long by five meters (16 feet) wide by one meter (about three feet) high, they normally look like huge ‘mud blisters’, with more or less liquid mud cores contained within living ‘skins’ created by the roots of rushes, sedges and other swampy vegetation, including shrubs and small trees.2 The workmen in 1974 had obviously cut into the end of one of these mounds, partly deflating it. Since then the two most active ‘blisters’ have largely been deflated and flattened by visitors probing them with sticks.3

In 1990 an ‘unofficial’ attempt was made to render the site ‘safe’.4 A contractor tipped many truckloads of quarry stone and rubble totaling at least 100 tonnes into the mud springs, only to see the heap sink out of sight within half an hour! Liquid mud spurted out of the ground and flowed for some 600 meters (about 2,000 feet) down the stream channel clogging it. Worried, the contractor brought in a tracked digger and found he could push the bucket down 6.7 meters (22 feet) into the spring without finding a bottom.
     So why all the ‘excitement’ over some mud springs? Not only is there no explanation of the way the springs ooze pale, cold, gray mud onto and over the ground surface, but the springs are also ‘pumping up’ fossils that are supposed to be 165 million years old, including newly discovered species.1 In the words of Dr Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, who has investigated the springs, ‘They are like a fossil conveyor belt bringing up finds from clay layers below and then washing them out in a nearby stream.’1
Over the years numerous fossils have been found in the adjacent stream, including the Jurassic ammonite Rhactorhynchia inconstans, characteristic of the so-called inconstans bed near the base of the Kimmeridge Clay, estimated as being only about 13 metres (almost 43 feet) below the surface at Templar’s Firs.5 Fossils retrieved from the mud springs and being cataloged at the British Geological Survey office in Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, include the remains of sea urchins, the teeth and bones of marine reptiles, and oysters ‘that once lived in the subtropical Jurassic seas that covered southern England.’1
Some of these supposedly 165 million year old ammonites are previously unrecorded species, says Dr Hollingworth, and the real surprise is that ‘many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells’.1 According to Dr Hollingworth these ‘pristine fossils’ are ’the best preserved he has seen … . You just stand there [beside the mud springs] and up pops an ammonite. What makes the fossils so special is that they retain their original shells of aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] … The outsides also retain their iridescence …’6 And what is equally amazing is that, in the words of Dr Hollingworth, ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’!1
Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old. Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time.7,8 Without the millions–of–years bias, these fossils would readily be recognized as victims of a comparatively recent event, for example, the global devastation of Noah’s Flood only about 4,500 years ago.

   2) Most members of the public still think, as a result of years of conditioning, that the formation of fossils is somehow associated with long time-spans. Those who accept the Bible as the truthful Word of the Creator would know that this cannot be, since there could not have been death and bloodshed before the rebellion of the first man, Adam. They would therefore expect evidence that fossil formation is generally a rapid, catastrophic process.

When one finds a fossil of an isolated tooth or shell, for example, it is not possible to say how quickly or slowly it formed. However, there are countless examples of fossils concerning which it is obvious that long time-spans could not have been involved. For instance, fossils which have features so beautifully preserved that they must have been buried and hardened before they could be damaged by scavengers or decay.

In this spectacular case, not only is the fossil exquisitely preserved, but the fact that mother and infant are 'trapped' in a not-yet-completed birth process makes it profoundly clear that both were rapidly overwhelmed by catastrophic burial, consistent with the world flood of Noah's day. It is, of course, not feasible that mother just lay on the bottom of the ocean floor giving birth for thousands of years while being slowly covered up by accumulating sediments!

Unlike many other reptiles, ichthyosaurs gave birth to live young. Another photo shows another fossilised mother ichthyosaur with several unborn in her abdomen, and with what appears to be a newborn juvenile a short distance away (perhaps her own). Again, the beautiful state of preservation defies the idea that long time-spans were involved in the formation of this fossil.

3) Because of the apparent frailty of their bodies, and the ability of many of them to fly, insects are thought of being rarely found as fossils. Any mention of insect fossils though, and most people think of insects spectacularly fossilized in amber.1 However, insect fossils have also been found preserved in fine-grained sedimentary strata, including those associated with sequences of coal beds.2

One world-famous fossil insect bed is that found in the Belmont-Warner's Bay area of Newcastle, approximately 90 miles (145km) north of central Sydney, Australia.3 This horizon is about 2 ft. 6 in. (0.75m) thick, and consists of hard, fine-grained tuffaceous chert. It lies some 70 ft. (20m) below the bottom of the economically-exploited Fassifern Coal Seam in the upper Newcastle Coal Measures, and thus is conventionally regarded as late Permian at around 250 million years old.4 Outcrops of the fossil insect bed occur for almost two miles (3.2km) along a ridge. Its lateral extent has never been traced due to housing estates and industrial developments in the surrounding areas, but it is believed to extend at least six miles (9.6km) in a one mile (1.6km) wide belt in a general northwest-southeast direction.

The fine grain size of the tuffaceous chert bed has facilitated the detailed preservation of even the venation in the prolific insect wings entombed therein. Stratification is pronounced and well-defined joints cause the tuffaceous chert to break into rhomb-shaped blocks. In some cases the fresh, grey to black rock is so highly silicified as to be slightly translucent, and all evidence of banding is obliterated. This insect bed is underlain by a 15-18 ft. (4.6-5.5m) thick sandstone, beneath which is a very prominent bed of coarse, strongly-cemented conglomerate consisting of water-worn pebbles (including pebbles of coal). Fossil wood is abundant in this underlying sandstone, including sections of fossilized tree trunks up to 18 in. (0.46m) in diameter.

Fossil insect remains—predominantly wings, but including portions of bodies—were first recognized in this tuffaceous chert in 1898, and subsequently nearly 2000 specimens were collected and registered at The Australian Museum in Sydney.5 It has been estimated, extrapolating from an average yield of 10-20 fossil insect wings per cubic foot, that there could be some hundreds of millions of fossil insect wings per square mile preserved in this bed.

The diversity of the insect assemblage is equally extraordinary. Some 145 species assigned to 97 genera have been described from this horizon.6 The Belmont insect fauna is, from an evolutionary perspective, "curiously unbalanced" when compared to that found in rocks of the corresponding geological "age" in the northern hemisphere.7 No Palaeoptera ("ancient wings"), except an undescribed meganisopteron8 (large, probably predacious insects resembling dragonflies with 12-75cm [4.7-29.5 in.] wingspans), no blattoids (cockroaches), and no orthopteroids (straight-winged insects such as grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets) other than a single species of Plecoptera (stoneflies)9 are known from the Belmont Insect Bed. Only one species of Glosselytrodea (one of the mecopteroids, or insects with wings of equal length, such as the butterflies, moths, and flies) occurs,10 and one species of Odonata (dragonflies).11 However, there are about 60 Homoptera (cicadas, leafhoppers, aphids),12 about fifteen Psocoptera (related to book lice),13 three families of Neuroptera (lacewings),14 a few Coleoptera (beetles),15 and Trichoptera (caddis flies),16 an abundance (about 30) of Mecoptera (scorpion flies),17 and a few species (some reassigned) of Diptera (four-winged and two-winged flies).18 The "earliest" Heteroptera (includes stink bugs, assassin bugs, water bugs, and bed bugs) found anywhere in the world come from this horizon.19 Furthermore, apart from a single specimen from the late Carboniferous of Tasmania, the insect fauna from the Belmont Insect Bed is the oldest known in Australia.20

Of significance is the fact that these insect remains in this tuffaceous chert horizon are associated with plentiful fossil conchostracans (mostly diminutive, branchiopod crustaceans with a bivalved carapace enclosing the whole body, and related to water fleas). Living conchostracans inhabit freshwater environments. A diverse fossil assemblage has been described,21 a total of 25 species of this group of arthropods being present in this horizon.22 Fish scales are plentiful in some localities, though no fossil fish have been found.23 Associated plant remains include Glossopteris, Phyllotheca, and Neoggerathiopsis with occasional Annularia and Sphenopteris, woody gymnosperm trees, ferns, and horsetails that constitute the flora of the coal seams in the Newcastle Coal Measures, and other southern hemisphere Permian coals. The lower portions of the Belmont Insect Bed possess a coarse texture and are dirty brown to black in color, due to the prevalent comminuted plant remains resembling chopped straw.

Many theories have been advanced to explain how insects might have evolved,24 beginning with a few wingless groups in Devonian rocks. After a gap in the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian), there is a sudden explosive "appearance" of winged insects in Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) and Permian rocks, where representatives of nearly all extant orders are found. There is definitely no evidence of macroevolutionary transitional forms amongst the myriad of fossilized insects found in the Belmont Insect Bed, nor in the insect fossil record as a whole. Insects appear suddenly in the record fully-formed and fully-functional (intelligently designed and created), and after that they just diversify (reproduce after their "kinds"). Yet the relative richness of the insect fossil record is indicated by the 1,087 insect families having a geological history, and the 69% of living families having fossil representatives.

On the other hand, there are only about 790 living insect families, which implies more than 27% of the 1,087 insect families have become extinct. In reality the strata contain a record of death, so graphically evident in this Belmont Insect Bed. Hundreds of millions of insects were suddenly caught in a blanket of volcanic ash catastrophically blasted over them. Wings were ripped from insect bodies, though sometimes bodies without wings and legs, or with parts of only some legs,25 survived the volcanic blast to be entombed with all the wings. The accumulation of this silicified volcanic ash bed was no slow-and-gradual process in some temporal habitat, for only a catastrophe would have swept together and entombed such an incredible mass of insect parts with the carapaces of countless tiny crustaceans, fish scales, plate remains, and plant "hash." Nor was this volcanic catastrophe some isolated event in the midst of timeless tranquility, but rather a fleeting stage in a far greater watery cataclysm. Directly beneath this volcanic ash bed, deposited over an enormously extensive area, is a coarse, water-worn pebble conglomerate, and sandstone with the fossilized remains of the tree trunks whose violently stripped foliage very soon became the plant remains and "hash" in the volcanic ash. Above, the strata include the great thicknesses of plant debris making up coal seams, buried by further violently transported conglomerate masses.

Thus these swarms of insects, whose original ancestors had been created and then diversified as they had reproduced after their "kinds," were catastrophically destroyed and entombed by a volcanic blast during a watery cataclysm. This Australian fossil insect bed, therefore, bears eloquent testimony to the devastation during the Genesis Flood.


This ones long enough, I wanted to give as much detail as possible to allow you to form your own opinions.  I'll put more on another reply.










0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users