A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2014, 05:53 PM
A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
A Dr. Jay Wile has a page on out of place fossils. So I decided to refute the claims.

"One of the ways evolutionists deal with the problem is to simply deny what the fossil clearly indicates. For example, in 2006 the journal Science published a paper entitled, “A Nearly Modern Amphibious Bird from the Early Cretaceous of Northwestern China.”1 It discusses several fossils of a bird named Gansus yumenensis. As the title of the article makes clear, the fossils look very much like modern ducks. There are a few features different from modern ducks, such as claws on the wings, but overall, they look like modern ducks. The problem is that they can’t be ducks, because they are supposed to be 105-115 million years old, which is long before ducks were supposed to have evolved." He then goes to say "Because of its supposed age, then, it is considered to be a very primitive ancestor of ducks, despite the fact that it looks nearly modern."

This is the first problem. There is more to an animal then it acting and looking the same. Gansus did look like a duck, and acted like modern water birds but that doesn't make it a duck. Basilosarus and Progantodaon looked alike and acted the same(both aquatic predators) but they are taxonomically different. Loons and ducks also look and act the same but they are taxonomically different. Loons are part of a super order called neoaves, which have much different genetic and anatomical then galloanserans, which is the superorder ducks are a part of. It is more then just looks and behavior. So there is a reason gansus is put part of a different taxon then ducks.

"Since then, of course, paleontologists have found vertebrate fossils in Cambrian rock, which is supposed to be older than Ordovician rock. As a result, they have just changed the story of evolution. Rather than appearing 480 million years ago, vertebrates are now thought to have appeared about 525 million years ago.3 If a vertebrate fossil is later found in rock that is supposedly older, that won’t be a problem. Evolutionists will simply say that vertebrates evolved even earlier."

I can debunk this claim in a heartbeat. Ever hear about agnatha? They are vertebrates which first evolved in the Cambrian.1

"They simply said that there must have been some kind of gymnosperm (a tree that produces uncovered seeds, like an evergreen) that just happened to produce amber that is chemically indistinguishable from the amber made by angiosperms. Gymnosperms were supposed to be around 320 million years ago, so if this amber came from a gymnosperm, there is no problem. It doesn’t matter that all known gymnosperms produce a resin (the stuff that makes amber) which is chemically quite distinct from the resin made by angiosperms. Because evolution must be true, there must have been a gymnosperm that lived 320 million years ago and made such resin. Of course, that gymnosperm is now conveniently extinct."

Gymnosperms evolved before the carboniferous and they are still alive today.2

There are no out of place fossils, just creationist that misunderstand our current scientific understanding. Popcorn Grab a snack and thanks for reading.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12162#r2

1. http://www.nhptv.org/wild/agnatha.asp

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnosperm

[Image: c72c4966d54210a1eb59d0df5dcb52f6.jpg]

[Image: AAT-T30035_lg.jpg]

comparing the skulls of our duck and gansus

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
12-03-2014, 07:42 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
Evolution very often repeats itself. There's no limit to how many times the same characteristics may evolve in completely unrelated species.

There's an animal from Madagascar (I forget its name) that looks exactly like a hedgehog... but, it is in no way a close relative of hedgehogs... They are a species that have evolved completely seperately, yet have evolved similar characteristics.

The more I learn about evolution, the more fascinating it becomes.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
12-03-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
Sure, P/F, you wouldn't expect some creatard jackass to read all that when they would much rather run to their bible and shove it and their own heads up their asses?

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 08:11 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
(12-03-2014 08:09 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Sure, P/F, you wouldn't expect some creatard jackass to read all that when they would much rather run to their bible and shove it and their own heads up their asses?

Laugh out load I feel they do that all the time.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 08:34 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
Have been studying some of this in my Earth Science class...I wish I had been more 'sciency' when I was much younger! So much that I missed but am finally catching up on.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
12-03-2014, 08:59 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
(12-03-2014 07:42 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  Evolution very often repeats itself. There's no limit to how many times the same characteristics may evolve in completely unrelated species.

Did not know this. >.>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 09:20 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
(12-03-2014 08:59 PM)Charis Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 07:42 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  Evolution very often repeats itself. There's no limit to how many times the same characteristics may evolve in completely unrelated species.

Did not know this. >.>

It's called convergent evolution.

I wouldn't quite state it the way Paranoidsam did. It's not the same, but similar.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
I have a book PDF on convergent evolution. It's called Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
I was not aware there were out of place fossils that weren't explainable by strata movement, anything that does not conform to current models is added to enrich the current models.
Is there currently an "out of place fossil" that has not rational explanation ?

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2014, 03:54 AM
RE: A response to a creationist on:Out of place fossils.
(12-03-2014 10:35 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  I have a book PDF on convergent evolution. It's called Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful.

You know I want that paper

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: