Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[Diamond]

I am unable to accept the famed "Man Tracks" in the Paluxy limestone near glen Rose, TX, (because I know who carved them, and I have run my fingers over his chisel marks).

I think even Glen J. Kuban, who has probably spent more time investigating these tracks than just about anybody else, and who does not accept the tracks as human, would not buy the assertions that these tracks were carved, that you know the person that carved them, and that you have run your fingers over the chisel marks:

"The Taylor Site contains a long trail of deeply impressed dinosaur tracks, and several shallower trails, four of which have been claimed by many creationists to be human: the Giant Run Trail, the Turnage Trail, the Taylor Trail, and the Ryals Trail (which includes a large hole reported to be the spot from which a human track was removed many years ago). Many of these alleged "man tracks" were fairly shallow and more or less oblong in shape, and did not match the shape of any dinosaur tracks known to the Taylor crew. Some of the these tracks did vaguely resemble human footprints, however, many of the tracks also showed problematic (non-human) features (discussed further below). This site has received more acclaim than other "man track" sites for the following reasons: 1) The elongated tracks on this site are numerous and occur in clear right-left sequences; 2) At least some of these tracks were excavated from under previously undisturbed strata, precluding the possibility that they are carvings or erosion marks; 3) Many of them show "mud push-ups" and other features confirming that they are real tracks and not erosion marks or carvings; 4) Several of the "man tracks" were reported to show clear human toe marks when first uncovered[4] (although no published photographs have ever shown this); and 5) Three of the alleged human trails (Taylor, Turnage, and Giant Run) intersect the trail of deep and distinct dinosaur tracks, providing clear evidence that the elongated tracks and the deep dinosaur tracks were made at approximately the same time."
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm"

Cordially,

[Right Wing Professor]

You should take a few moments to step out and laugh at yourself from time to time.

I'm too busy laughing at creationists. Maybe if y'all would be a little less comical...

[Chiapet]

Ichneumon, Ichneumon...I have skimmed over the lengthy post #76 that you referred to in one of your previous posts. No doubt, it seems impressive, and I freely concede that I do not have the background in these fields of study, not to mention the sheer time it would take, to explore all of the citations, articles, ad nauseum that you list there.

However, it is not necessary for me to go on a fruitless quest to understand the minute details of everything that evolutionists allege in their papers and articles. That would be a tremendous waste of time and energy. The crux of the matter is that it still boils down to some basic questions that must be dealt with up front.

Setting the philosophical questions aside, the two biggest problems for the evolutionists are the absence of transitional fossil forms and the blind-faith assertion that macroevolution has occurred.

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose this is way too long for "this is your brain on creationism"....

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks for the compliment, but seriously, if you want a debate on philosophical naturalism, you might consider that conceding that your opponents might have a point to make is a first step. Attacking Pinker and Wilson, both highly erudite men who are not fools, not knee-jerk leftists (Pinker was Larry Summers' most conspicuous defender, and WIlson has been viciously attacked by the left over the last quarter century), and who have come to their positions thoughtfully, is not a productive way to start.

[ahayes]

Miracles are supposed to be incredible, that's the point.

[Coyoteman]

the two biggest problems for the evolutionists are the absence of transitional fossil forms and the blind-faith assertion that macroevolution has occurred.

I'll deal with the transitionals, as you included no information at all on them.

This will involve posting the "skulls" photograph that Mamzelle hates so much, so don't tell her, OK?

Now, the claim that there are no transitionals completely ignores the folks in this photograph. Except for #A, a modern chimp, the rest follow along in a fairly nice progression--which is laid out in the chart which follows the photograph.

Now, which of these are transitionals? Why, all of them! Every population (as evolution works on populations, not individuals) is transitional between ancestors and descendants. The small differences can build up over time into bigger differences.

Look at the similarities between #A (a modern chimp) and #B (Australopithecus). You can also see some differences.

These differences can also be seen in various other traits in the photograph. For example, note from #B to about #G and H the reduction in alveolar prognathism (the forward projection of the lower face). Note also the increase in brain size from #C to #I.

Now, you have see with your own eyes that there are intermediate steps in the process of changing from #B, a very chimp-like early ancestor to #N, modern humans. These intermediate steps can be called transitionals.

OK, skip to the bottom for closing comments.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

Of course I do not expect you to accept this, because it would obviously go against your already-decided religious beliefs.

But it is disingenuous for you to be entering into the various fields of science with a large stop sign, saying,

STOP! You idiots don't know nothin', I'll tell you how it really was!

based on your religious belief rather than on any scientific evidence.

[hosepipe]

[ My ten year old daughter asks me, "Mommy, if space doesn't end, does that mean it's still being created?". Hmmm? ]

Hmm indeed.. When my daughter was a little less than ten.. When I tickled her, she would say, "Stop it, some more!".. Out of mouth of babes often comes truth..

[2nsdammit]

I agree about laughing or crying....

One can give evidence, supported by scientific data, backed by all sorts of experts in the field in question; then, you get an answer like "Gee, I don't understand that stuff, it's too complicated, but I know it's wrong!" Frustrating.....

[ahayes]

No doubt, it seems impressive, and I freely concede that I do not have the background in these fields of study, not to mention the sheer time it would take, to explore all of the citations, articles, ad nauseum that you list there. . .

Setting the philosophical questions aside, the two biggest problems for the evolutionists are the absence of transitional fossil forms and the blind-faith assertion that macroevolution has occurred.

Let me get this straight. You admit that you don't have the background or the time to study the evidence for the theory of evolution, and then you say that although you aren't qualified to analyze it and you don't know what the evidence is you know that we don't have evidence?? Talk about blind faith!

We have fossil transitional species and we have genetic evidence that "macroevolution" has occurred, and we have observed mechanisms that allow this. Unfortunately as long as you're getting your information from YEC propaganda you will remain perpetually ignorant of this.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"CG, your comprehension ain't any better in THIS thread!"

Sorry, he's talking about science in general. His loss of faith was not evolution specific.

[music_code]

Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms
A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.
If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.

Consider...

The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.

Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.

Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.

Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.

Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.

Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.

Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.

The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.

And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.

The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.

Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist position.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Creationists posting without attribution Placemarker

[music_code]

We have fossil transitional species and we have genetic evidence that "macroevolution" has occurred, and we have observed mechanisms that allow this.

You cannot make absolute statements like the above. The most you can say is, "we believe that fossil transitional species exist based on the fossil record as we see it" and "we believe that we see genetic evidence of macroevolution". There certainly is nothing like unanimous agreement on these two things among scientists. As long as there is serious disagreement and stated objections to your assertions, you must concede that these are not facts, as you allege, but merely your own opinions.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"here certainly is nothing like unanimous agreement on these two things among scientists."

95% plus agreement. That's as unanimous as anything is going to get in science.

"As long as there is serious disagreement and stated objections to your assertions, you must concede that these are not facts, as you allege, but merely your own opinions."

There is no serious disagreement about the fossil record containing many many transitionals or that the genetic evidence overwhelmingly points to common descent.

[Coyoteman]

You don't even seem to have read what I wrote in #1066, above. It looks like you just hustled over to your favorite creation website and pulled the first seemingly relevant page you could find. Oh, here is the URL, which you forgot to include:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm

You also forgot to include "Updated: 10/4/95" which appears at the bottom of the page. Really on top of things over there, eh?

But, that OK. I'll play the game.

The first two paragraphs of this site read:

A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.

If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

This is why I figure you didn't actually read my post. If you had, you would have seen with your own eyes just what these paragraphs claim couldn't and didn't happen.

Go back to post #1066 and really look at the various skulls, and you will see for yourself the gradual changes (transitionals) which your creationist websites say dodn't exist.

[ahayes]

LOL! Please don't tell me what I can and cannot express confidence in when you are so obviously undereducated in this area. I would say biologists and paleontologists are unanimous that fossil transitional species have been found. Geneticists are unanimous that through evolution several polyploidy events and gene duplications have occurred which allowed spectacular new variations to arise. Geneticists are unanimous that the mechanisms for these changes have been observed in the present. I'm afraid it is simply your own opinion that these things are so hazily uncertain.

[Coyoteman]

"dodn't don't exist"

[PatrickHenry]

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose this is way too long for "this is your brain on creationism"....

It qualifies with respect to the "creationism" part, but what about the "brain" element?

[ahayes]

"Creationist posting without attribution out-dated, inaccurate, and overly simplistic material making unrealistic demands" Placemarker

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's called the "Argument From Ignorance."