Ben Stein Expelled

[Chrisb3]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

Not only has your statement been completely false for a very long period of time, but here is a fascinating new example of evolution in action. What makes this so fascinating is how quickly these changes occured (~30 years)

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

P.S. Does anyone actually believe that highly-educated secular Jew Ben Stein actually believes in fundamentalist Christian creationist myths? Me neither...

Couldn't they have interbred with the native lizards? :/

If not then genetics is obviously wrong and we have an awful lot of criminals to free The bible doesn't mention DNA anyway...

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Anyone else find it endlessly amusing that no matter how many times we go about ripping creationists opinions about evolution, science, and the history of the earth/universe to shreds, a week or two later a new idiot pops up and spouts the same tired bullshit again?

I actually love it.

Right now, one of two things is happening.

1) Eliyahu FoR is currently trying to wrap his/her head around the fact that he/she has been spoon-fed horribly incorrect information for X amount of years. After the shock dies down, he/she will then begin the epic adventure of learning about the amazing and awesome power of science and begin his/her new career to cure cancer using modern scientific practices instead of bronze age mythos.

2) Eliyahu FoR ignored or selectively disregarded everything that has been said and is currently pouring over massive amounts of Creationist literature trying to find some mention of anything that has been said so he/she can reply with a talking point that someone else spoon-fed him/her.

Remember Eomer, the second we stop calling out these people on their intellectual dishonesty is the second they start teaching "Intelligent Design" in a science class.

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

P.S. Does anyone actually believe that highly-educated secular Jew Ben Stein actually believes in fundamentalist Christian creationist myths? Me neither...

No but I do think it is possible that he is shilling for people that do.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Schatze

Yeah, I'd say there's a vast difference. Even though you can perfectly well reconcile evolution with whatever spiritual beliefs you want, the simple fact is this generation (sub-25) is just not religious. They may self-identify as Christian, but they don't go to church, haven't since they were a young child, don't have any active beliefs, don't particular adhere to any of tenets of the Christian belief. In short, they're not actually Christians. They, like I would for most of my teenage life, would have self-identified Christian even though I had no beliefs simply because that's what my parents were.

WTF? Schatze, I thought we decided to stop making sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact. This statement is beyond wrong as there are millions of twenty-somethings involved in every single religion there is. Hell there are even pagan religions making a comeback in the demographic you mention (e.g. wicca). The fact is your own personal view is skewed because you work in academia where a majority of young people have been shamed into becoming atheists due to the scorn thrown at them by people just like you. I saw it happen first hand and did then and will always take a stand against it.

There is no controversy around "creation and evolution". The aforementioned Canadian alliance party candidate Stockwell Day turned out to be a creationist. What happened? Every single show on TV started to make fun of him. In Canada, the intelligence chart from family guy really is accurate; if you're a creationist or an ID'r, you will be assumed to be mentally defective. That, and his fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, were constantly made fun of in national media. Would that happen in the states, where nearly all the Republican candidates identified as being creationists or proponents of ID?

And I am sure the Canadian national media is "fair and balanced." Amirite?

Doing a casual sample, I asked people I know who're in university if at any time any science teacher mentioned creationism as a competitive theory, made a disclaimer arounds evolution, or had people in their classes object to evolution. I couldn't find anyone who had. Sample size is 15 including myself, representative of 15 heterogeneous classroom environments.

See above why your sampling group is completely flawed. You live in some sort of social bubble where your particular social delusions are reinforced daily.

Screamfeeder has already started the debate again so I may as well put the gloves back on.

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

You are just about 100% wrong on all of this.

I'm just going to copy and paste my reply to someone just like you. Some of the things may not pertain exactly to you, but I am sure most of it is close.

I was going to spoiler it but a few other people here could benefit from reading it as well.

The person he is referring to is me I think. Since I have nothing better to do but study for a final, I am going to shoot some holes in this big long scary list.

First of all you have no idea what a transitional fossil is. You think a transitional fossil MUST be some sort of half-whale half-horse. You do not know your science or even the definitions of the words you are using.

Let me quickly explain what you are getting so horribly wrong.

There are three types of transitional fossils.

"General lineage" are a sequence of genera or families, connecting an older group of genera or families to a very different younger group. These are the bulk of transitional fossils.

"Species-to-species transitions" are individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. You find the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae and general bone structure, changing from what is normal of the first species to what is typical of the one that changed. The transitional fossil record for these types are mainly limited to marine life and more recent species of mammals. They are a bit more rare than the general lineage ones.

"Transitions to New Higher Taxa." These are the types of fossils that show how horses ( of the Order Perissodactyla) and whales (of the Order Cetacea) can both be traced back to the Eocene period to animals that were VERY similar and looked nothing like either whales or horses.

I realize you probably have NO idea what I just said and thats ok. You obviously never will because of your intellectual lazy ness. Perhaps if I were to simply list some transitional fossils for you (which you can in turn look up and research on your own [which you won't]), you might be able to understand that you are not only wrong, but a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Paleolithic Jersey dweller as well.

All of these fossils are considered transitional and can be researched on your own if you so choose. Just call a fucking science museum and I am sure they have some on display.

First off the underline is mine. I just wanted to point out the hypocracy of the statement you made. VERY similar, but looked NOTHING alike? lol

Now each of these classifications are based on the fossil record which has some extreme problems. First off, not only do scientists use the layer of strata that each fossil is found in to date them, but they use the fossils found in the strata to date the layer. If this isn't circular reasoning I don't know what is. Perhaps someone can dispel this problem I have with the fossil record because I have yet to find a good explanation. And don't fucking use carbon dating because that was shot down 20 pages ago.

First lets tackle the whole "fins to feet" thing.

First you need to realize that a fish didn't suddenly walk on land one day. The entire process of a finned animals developing legs which would work on land happened entirely in the water. They developed these legs the same way crabs did. In order to scurry around on the bottom of the sea floor.

Late Devonian Period
Paleoniscoids

Osteolepis Link Broken

Panderichthys

Elpistostege

Obruchevichthys

These are of course just fragments of transitional fossils (which remember you said don't exist). A full skeleton has not been found.

They did find MOST of a skeleton though for a few species.

Hynerpeton

Ichthyostega


After the Late Devonian Period, some of the fossils get a bit better. I hope you will take the time to actually learn about them before coming back in here to verbally shit all over yourself.

There are still fish that have feet-like fins to this day. Why aren't you using them as an example?

You know what I was going to stop there out of respect for not derailing this thread even more, but fuck it, lets link a couple dozen more transitional fossils that Eliyahu FoR says don't exist (I will link a book I swear).

Here are some amphibian to amniotes transitionals.

NOTE - The word amniotes means old-reptiles.

Solenodonsaurus Link Broken

Hylonomus

Now HERE are some examples of Species-to-species transitions within amniotes! AMAZING!

Captorhinus

Petrolacosaurus

Claudiosaurus - This one is a very cool one because this animal has characteristics of ALL diapsides which include lizards, snakes, crocs and birds.

Now we get to the good stuff. Mammals! We are going to kick things off with our good friend Mr. Paleothyris (a very old synapsid reptile) and we will end up at the very first mammals (which belong to the monotremes, marsupials, and placentals). OFF WE GO!

Paleothyris Link Broken - Thats too bad. I suggest you look this one up on your own because it is a very good example

Procynosuchus

Thrinaxodon

Probelesodon

Probainognathus

Every single one of those listed above are "reptiles". I know if I start going off about temporal fenestraes and secondary palate's you are just going to fall asleep but trust me. Those are all reptiles that are showing mammal like features. Those fossils span a time frame between the very early Pennsylvanian to the mid-late Triassic (About 112 Million years of time).

Underline: NO.

Found this while looking up paleothyris.

Also take a look at this picture:



This is an example of Pachygenelius. What does that little fucker look like to you? If you answered a mammal you are correct. But no, scientist say it is no mammal. Why?

Pachygenelius stands truly at the dividing line between cynodont and mammaliform in so far as this important diagnostic feature of jaw articulation is concerned. This is the only reason why the ictidosaurs are classified outside the mammaliformes.

Yes, its fucking jaw. The fur and warm-blooded metabolism are not enough to just make it a mammal. No, because of its jaw, which could be a adaptation from a mammalian jaw, it is considered a transitional fossil. So what about its ancestor, the Theriodonts? From wiki:

Theriodont jaws were more mammal-like than was the case of other therapsids, because their dentary was larger, which gave them a more efficient bite. Furthermore, several other bones that were on the lower jaw (found in reptiles), moved into the ears, allowing the theriodonts to hear better and their mouths to open wider. This made the theriodonts the most successful group of synapsids.

More shit about the jaw and small bones in the skull. These things make it a "mammal-like reptile."



Yep, a reptile with fur. Come on. Seriously? Where the hell are all the "mammal-like reptiles" today? They all must have died out when their offspring started taking over. Sigh, what I wouldn't give to have a fuzzy lizard.

Now lets look AFTER the Triassic and INTO the Jurassic (Yes Actovus, like the dinosaur movie...).

Diarthrognathus

Sinoconodon - Note the fully developed mammialian eye-socket. Argued to be first of it's kind.

Haldanodon

Steropodon galmani - First known monotreme (Platypus came from this guy).

Asioryctes

Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops and the very first Insectivores

Whew! That took us from the early Jurassic all the way to the late Cretaceous, a 141.6 million year time frame.

I am having WAY to much fun with this and while I would LOVE to head into the Cenozoic Eon, I think that might be too much at once. But within the Cenozoic you can find hundreds of transitional fossils for horses, cows, whales and WTF PRIMATES?!?! How long have THOSE been around?!?!?! Oh right, a few years.

The elusive hunt for a missing link is centered around a period of time that is around 8-10 million years old. That will be a tough find and we might never find anything that connects Dryopithecus (old apes) and Australopithecus ramidus (earliest known hominid). Oh well.

I hope you all learned something today!

I really have to go back to studying but if you want me to start punching holes again just say so and I will show some more examples of the bullshit you linked here. And try not to just link pictures, they tell us nothing. I want text to tell me what the hell I am looking at.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

First off the underline is mine. I just wanted to point out the hypocracy of the statement you made. VERY similar, but looked NOTHING alike? lol

You misread or I didn't hold your hand enough. The animals were very similar to EACH OTHER but radically different to modern whales and horses.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Now each of these classifications are based on the fossil record which has some extreme problems. First off, not only do scientists use the layer of strata that each fossil is found in to date them, but they use the fossils found in the strata to date the layer. If this isn't circular reasoning I don't know what is.

You seem to be woefully ignorant of how "strata layers" are dated.

A casual look at stratigraphy(dating of layers of rock) and it's good buddy biostratigraphy(dating of fossils found in layers of rock) sure makes it SEEM like it is circular but you have to dig just a bit deeper.

First off, the geological scale is in constant flux on a very small scale. Every single rock that is dated remains independent of another rock that is dated. Even if they are found right next to each other. Sometimes the dates that are returned are different. The same goes with fossils. Nothing is assumed about a fossil and rock being found at the same place. They are tested INDEPENDENT of each other. Most of the time they match but sometimes they don't. In the case of a piece of rock or fossil returning a different date than something it was expected to have, it is tested further using other radiometric methods. The data is never assumed to match.

You may not like that explanation, but that is the explanation.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

And don't fucking use carbon dating because that was shot down 20 pages ago.

Uhh ok. How about Isochron dating? You got some holes to poke in that?
What about argon dating?
Potassium-argon dating?
Uranium?

Hell what about OSL dating?
Why don't you give me just one problem with carbon dating and why that even applies here? Stratigraphy uses many different kinds of radiometric dating and usually many different tests are run multiple times on just one sample so please tell me why you even brought up carbon dating?

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Found this while looking up paleothyris.

Did you seriously link me to a page called darwinisdead.com that tried to tell me an amniotic egg did not evolve because it is too "complex"? What was the point of linking me that? To show me that the good people at Darwinisdead.com have no clue what a secondary palate is? That entire article is just rehashing crap from Duane Gish who has no credibility at all. What was the point of linking me that website?

Originally Posted by Arakkis

This is an example of Pachygenelius. What does that little fucker look like to you? If you answered a mammal you are correct. But no, scientist say it is no mammal. Why? Yes, its fucking jaw. The fur and warm-blooded metabolism are not enough to just make it a mammal. No, because of its jaw, which could be a adaptation from a mammalian jaw, it is considered a transitional fossil. So what about its ancestor, the Theriodonts? From wiki:

It is not a mammal OR a reptile. It is an animal that posses characteristics of BOTH thus making it a...shit whats the word...or right a TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Don't quote me wikipedia and expect to be taken seriously especially if it concerns something that needs reams of paper to back up.

Pachygenelius is exceptional because of it's jaw and I'm sorry the entire library full of research on quadrate articular jaw formation right alongside a mammal like squamosal-dentary jaw joint is missed to you.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Yep, a reptile with fur. Come on. Seriously? Where the hell are all the "mammal-like reptiles" today? They all must have died out when their offspring started taking over. Sigh, what I wouldn't give to have a fuzzy lizard.

Where are the Triceratops today? Where is the Paleocastor Beaver? SHIT WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE BASILOSAURUS ISIS(legged whales)?!?!?!?!

You see, sometimes animals go extinct....

So lets see all these holes you poked in my linking of about 20 transitional fossils.


Hole 1) You misunderstand something I may have typed wrong.

Hole 2) You falsely claim stratigraphy and biostratigraphy are circular to each other when they are tested independently of each other.

Hole 3) You bring up carbon dating for some reason.

Hole 4) In your fervent research you somehow manage to find a page on darwinisdead.com that just quotes incorrect biological statements made by discredited creationist Duane Gish. Why did you even link that?

Hole 5) The complexities of prehistoric skull formation are confusing to you and there is an artistic rendering of a Cynodont with fur so in your mind, Pachygenelius did not posses characteristics of both mammals and reptiles even though it did.

Did I miss any holes? You want to tell me why you linked to dawinisdead.com and why you even brought up carbon dating?

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

holy fuck this is going to be awesome!

I was not talking about you at all I was talking about Actovus or some other dumbass.

Edit-This Space Under Construction!

heh, I can't wait to see what Screamfeeder has planned.

Originally Posted by Eomer

Anyone else find it endlessly amusing that no matter how many times we go about ripping creationists opinions about evolution, science, and the history of the earth/universe to shreds, a week or two later a new idiot pops up and spouts the same tired bullshit again?

No? Same here.

I love this debate. I actually believe that Darwin had it mostly right, but it is little elitist pricks that claim everything has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that get me worked up. Claiming that the debate has ended when there are large gaps in the data is just silly.

And I give a shit why? Billions of people liked the Spice Girls. Does that mean they're actually a good, talented band? What the billions of people in this world believing in creationism tells me is that humanity has a long way to go before we're free of the grasp of superstition.

Girl power!

No, they're few. Definitely few. Possibly less than a few. Unless you consider the .1% (or less) of biologists who don't accept some form of evolution as the source of the variety of life on our planet as more than "a few."

Unfortunately, many religious leaders cling to dogma and in the past have violently opposed contradictory findings. The Catholic church was the worst offender for a while, but has slowly started coming around.

Go ahead and name me a "fact" from Genesis' creation stories that does not contradict (or better yet agrees with or is supported by) modern science.

Adam and Eve. At some point there had to be a first male and female human.

Oh, that's right, we actually have seen it numerous times, not just with microbiology but with large organisms. We haven't actually "observed" it first hand because, I don't know, evolution takes place over hundreds or thousands of generations and I just don't have the fucking patience (or lifespan) to sit around watching polar bears diverge from grizzly bears.

This is a bad argument. We actually have watched multiple generations of finches on the Galapagos Islands and have observed adaptation and decent with modification. People just don't want to admit we haven't seen a speciation event yet.

Speaking of having genetic evidence of species evolution: Salamanders formed new species despite interbreeding - life - 25 April 2008 - New Scientist

But I'm sure they just made all that shit up, right?

They are still salamanders. Salamanders with adaptations, yes, but still salamanders.

The fossil record will always be incomplete and have gaps in it. I'm positive there's a thread around here where Screamfeeder fed some creationist example after example of fossils that would be considered transitional by biologists, and the creationist just ignored the posts. I imagine you'll do the same. Ah, I see he reposts it later. Please respond to his post and the examples he provides.

Post above.

You should really go out and do some reading on modern genetics. You want evidence of evolution, genetics is where it's at. Through DNA studies we can actually determine migration of species, when new species emerged, how large the original population was, so on and so forth. Some of the information we've gleaned about human evolution from our own DNA is staggeringly interesting.

Not that you'll actually go out and look at any of it.

I am relatively well educated on modern molecular biology and genetics, but I still have problems with saying the pool's closed. There are still points under debate and claiming that there is no room for alternate interpretations is unscientific.

Go ahead and explain to me what the Big Bang has to do with evolution. I'll be waiting. Using this argument in this context is a clear demonstration you have very little understanding of what you're talking about, and it's comical how so many people who hold your beliefs frequently use it. It's bread out of ignorance and being force fed talking points to combat the evil "evolutionists". "Quick, bring up the Big Bang, that will distract them!"

Pretty sure his comment was about the scientific method, not evolution in particular.

Shit, someone better tell the biology department of every university and college on the fucking planet that they're doing it wrong.

Oh trust me, there are people doing it everyday. Hell even statistical significance is attacked, and it one of the cornerstones of all modern sciences.

Pretty sure the scale was from -6 or 7 to +6 or 7, where the far ends are absolute "belief" that god does or does not exist. But I don't recall exactly. And yeah, he considered himself one step away from the far end of the spectrum.

Dawkins can suck my cock. The only reason he got any publicity is because he attacks religion with a vitriol almost unheard of. How someone can hate an institution that most people turn to in times of great need is beyond me. I bet even you card carrying atheists say "Jesus Christ" and "godammit" when you are pissed and yell out "Oh God!" when you are fucking someone. Kind of funny how these things tend to stick around even in people that claim to not believe.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

I love this debate. I actually believe that Darwin had it mostly right, but it is little elitist pricks that claim everything has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that get me worked up.

Who here has claimed that? No one. People have shitted on ID because it is in no way useful nor does it carry any weight as a scientific theory at all.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

This is a bad argument. We actually have watched multiple generations of finches on the Galapagos Islands and have observed adaptation and decent with modification. People just don't want to admit we haven't seen a speciation event yet.

You could find volumes on observed speciation within the literature if you cared to look.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

I am relatively well educated on modern molecular biology and genetics

Ok.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

They are still salamanders. Salamanders with adaptations, yes, but still salamanders.

Oh. By well educated in molecular biology and genetics you mean you skipped over 5th grade biology, high school biology, and every intro bio class in college where they go over scientific classification. Salamanders being a whole 3 steps up from the species level and all.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Pretty sure his comment was about the scientific method, not evolution in particular.

And it was still wholly ignorant of how actual science works.

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

How someone can hate an institution that most people turn to in times of great need is beyond me.

Take off the blinders for fucks sake. What about all the good things Hitler did?

Religion looks totally sweet when you just look at the good things and throw out all the bad shit.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

I bet even you card carrying atheists say "Jesus Christ" and "godammit" when you are pissed and yell out "Oh God!" when you are fucking someone. Kind of funny how these things tend to stick around even in people that claim to not believe.

The Christian Calendar:
Tuesday is Tyr's Day
Wednesday is Woden's (Odin's) day
Thursday is Thor's Day
Friday is Freya's (or Frigg's) Day

Why hasn't this changed? Religion sticks around in a lot of things.

If I grew up in Iran i'd be yelling OH ALLAH. What the fuck does "YOU'RE DRIVING ME UP THE WALL" mean literally? Absolutely fucking nothing, it's just a saying. Saying "you're driving me up the wall" is the equivalentl of an atheist saying "OH GOD".

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

You misread or I didn't hold your hand enough. The animals were very similar to EACH OTHER but radically different to modern whales and horses.

The animals are similar to... each other? Good thing, or they wouldn't be the same species, lol.

You seem to be woefully ignorant of how "strata layers" are dated.

It's true. I have done LOTS of school, but I only have one geology course under my belt. Even with all of the comparative anatomy, evolution, and evolutionary genetics courses I have taken, I have yet to hear a good explanation of how layers of rock are dated.

A casual look at stratigraphy(dating of layers of rock) and it's good buddy biostratigraphy(dating of fossils found in layers of rock) sure makes it SEEM like it is circular but you have to dig just a bit deeper.

First off, the geological scale is in constant flux on a very small scale. Every single rock that is dated remains independent of another rock that is dated. Even if they are found right next to each other. Sometimes the dates that are returned are different. The same goes with fossils. Nothing is assumed about a fossil and rock being found at the same place. They are tested INDEPENDENT of each other. Most of the time they match but sometimes they don't. In the case of a piece of rock or fossil returning a different date than something it was expected to have, it is tested further using other radiometric methods. The data is never assumed to match.

You may not like that explanation, but that is the explanation.

I like it very much. Now give me links to read plox.

Uhh ok. How about Isochron dating? You got some holes to poke in that?
What about argon dating?
Potassium-argon dating?
Uranium?

Hell what about OSL dating?
Why don't you give me just one problem with carbon dating and why that even applies here? Stratigraphy uses many different kinds of radiometric dating and usually many different tests are run multiple times on just one sample so please tell me why you even brought up carbon dating?

And when were those radioisotope decay dating methods invented? And when was much of the taxonomy you are linking done? Now don't get me wrong, lots of modern papers have been published, but are you telling me every single fossil that was found and cataloged went through that exacting dating method?

Did you seriously link me to a page called darwinisdead.com that tried to tell me an amniotic egg did not evolve because it is too "complex"? What was the point of linking me that? To show me that the good people at Darwinisdead.com have no clue what a secondary palate is? That entire article is just rehashing crap from Duane Gish who has no credibility at all. What was the point of linking me that website?

Bah, read past that to the point where they start talking about the transitional fossils. They say that some animals that were thought to be links between different classifications actually occurred BEFORE the ANCESTOR. What is up with that?

It is not a mammal OR a reptile. It is an animal that posses characteristics of BOTH thus making it a...shit whats the word...or right a TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Don't quote me wikipedia and expect to be taken seriously especially if it concerns something that needs reams of paper to back up.

Pachygenelius is exceptional because of it's jaw and I'm sorry the entire library full of research on quadrate articular jaw formation right alongside a mammal like squamosal-dentary jaw joint is missed to you.

So why are there no animals that still have some of the characteristic of both? Why do we only see very different organisms without any of the intermediaries? I would think that an animal with the evolutionary adaptations of a reptile and a mammal would be more likely to survive than either of the other families. So if mammals evolved from reptiles due to evolutionary pressures, why didn't reptiles become extinct? Why do we still have many organisms that have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years when their ancestors were put under such strong evolutionary pressures that they had to become radically different to survive?

And don't cop out by claiming that research is lost on me. Explain why the jawbone of an animal makes it radically different when some many things are similar and give me some links so I can go read and educate myself.

Where are the Triceratops today? Where is the Paleocastor Beaver? SHIT WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE BASILOSAURUS ISIS(legged whales)?!?!?!?!

You see, sometimes animals go extinct....

And why did they go extinct? Science still can't explain why all the fucking dinosaurs died, but they can say why warm blooded animals evolved from cold blooded? I believe that animals can adapt to environmental pressures, but we don't even know what those pressures were. All we see are changes in organisms, some small, some gigantic, with very few in between.

So lets see all these holes you poked in my linking of about 20 transitional fossils.


Hole 1) You misunderstand something I may have typed wrong.

OK, but I still think you have it typed wrong.

Hole 2) You falsely claim stratigraphy and biostratigraphy are circular to each other when they are tested independently of each other.

So which one is believed when neither match? Do you think conclusions have ever been made on fossils that were date wrongly?

Hole 3) You bring up carbon dating for some reason.

Carbon dating is only good up to about 60,000 years due to its half life, but is used to date beyond that. I don't understand how or why this is done. Radioisotope dating is, again, not that old and I cannot believe that the entire fossil record has been tested when there are still papers being referenced from the 19teens.

Hole 4) In your fervent research you somehow manage to find a page on darwinisdead.com that just quotes incorrect biological statements made by discredited creationist Duane Gish. Why did you even link that?

Why didn't you read it?

Hole 5) The complexities of prehistoric skull formation are confusing to you and there is an artistic rendering of a Cynodont with fur so in your mind, Pachygenelius did not posses characteristics of both mammals and reptiles even though it did.

I think you may have typoed here because I have no idea what you are trying to get across.

Did I miss any holes? You want to tell me why you linked to dawinisdead.com and why you even brought up carbon dating?

Done and done.

PS When Xakk, Tea for Tuesday, or anyone else for that matter actually add something worthwhile besides ad hominem attacks I will reply to them. This is a big boy talk and if you can't hang gtfo.

[Screamfeeder]

There isn't any great place to read up on stratigraphy and biostratigraphy that I have found on the web. Your basic 100 level college course should cover it however. If you have access to college level geology professors you may want to see if they have copies of Stratigraphy which is a quarterly report that I think is still being published.

You may also want to explore TalkOrigins.com.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

And when were those radioisotope decay dating methods invented? And when was much of the taxonomy you are linking done? Now don't get me wrong, lots of modern papers have been published, but are you telling me every single fossil that was found and cataloged went through that exacting dating method?

They range in dates from the early 1900's all the way up to the newest OSL advances being worked on to this day. Every time a new isotope dating method came about, many different fossils were then retested using the newer methods. The Tyrannosaurus site from Montana comes to mind.

And yes, when a single sample is taken from a site, it is tested using a variety of methods, none of which involve carbon. Carbon dating is not used on rocks and I would love for you to show me where it specifically states that a rock was dated based exclusively on the decay of carbon.

As an example off the top of my head, igneous rocks are generally first tested using Potassium-Argon dating. Potassium-40 as a Parent and Argon-40(there is also some Calcium decay) as a Daughter element have a half-life of 1.26 billion (1,260,000,000) years. But the exact sample may also be tested using Argon-Argon which is almost the exact same method as Potassium-Argon but uses a different measurement (argon to starting potassium as opposed to argon from potassiumn). The very same rock may even be dated using Rubidium-Strontium which is a totally different method and has a half life of something like 49 billion years.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Bah, read past that to the point where they start talking about the transitional fossils. They say that some animals that were thought to be links between different classifications actually occurred BEFORE the ANCESTOR. What is up with that?

I read it and it was wrong.

The article you linked is saying that Seymouria is being used as a transitional fossil to show a link between early reptiles and amphibians. I never used Seymouria as a transitional fossil and I can't seem to find anyone else saying that Seymouria is a transitional fossil.

In fact, when I look up Seymouria I mostly find Creationists saying "Some guy said Seymouria is a transitional fossil and Duane Gish said it was not!"

His other example is Diadectes which is also not a transitional fossil and no one ever said it was.

It appears that when Seymouria and Diadectes were first discovered, it was speculated they MIGHT be transitional, but after some simple examination, they were shown not to be.

So you got hoodwinked by a very common Creationist argument.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

So why are there no animals that still have some of the characteristic of both?

You are trying to lump the entire planet into one specific ecosystem. There is a reason you find more amphibians on lake shores and more reptiles on riverbanks. Animals don't evolve to survive on EARTH, they evolve to survive within their local ecosystem.

Secondly, when you say "relatively unchanged" I think you need to put a qualifier on there about what you think "relatively unchanged" means.

Some people think the Crocodile never evolved but for some reason we have quite a few different versions of crocodiles around.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

And don't cop out by claiming that research is lost on me. Explain why the jawbone of an animal makes it radically different when some many things are similar and give me some links so I can go read and educate myself.

It's not just a jaw bone. It's the entire lower part of the skull. But that is besides the point. The jawbone does not make it radically different. You made that up. The jaw joints and lower skull of Pachygenelius shows that a cynodont (advanced mammal-like reptiles) may also be classified as a mammiform (animal with a mammal like bone structure). The very fact that Pachygenelius has traits of both cynodonts and mammaliforms makes it an exceptionally good transitional form.

Let me know if any of that needs clearing up.

As far as reading goes, good luck finding good stuff on the web. As I mentioned before you may want to hit up talkorigins.com but other than that you are going to be either reading hard copy books or sitting in on a lecture or two.

EDIT- I forgot to comment on two other things.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

So which one is believed when neither match? Do you think conclusions have ever been made on fossils that were date wrongly?

Neither one is believed. That would be bad science. On the very very very very very rare occasions that you have two samples right next to each other that are identical in every aspect but still date exponentially different, the sample is tested for contamination in a reactor. Most of the time you can trace the problem directly to human error however and in that case the sample is disregarded.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Carbon dating is only good up to about 60,000 years due to its half life, but is used to date beyond that. I don't understand how or why this is done. Radioisotope dating is, again, not that old and I cannot believe that the entire fossil record has been tested when there are still papers being referenced from the 19teens.

It has? The only thing I can recall carbon dating being used for is objects that are organic and younger than 50,000 or objects that have a known creation date (Dead Sea Scrolls). If you are going to try and bring up the example of the Jurassic Wood or whatever then try again. That was human error and Carbon-14 was going to give meaningless results anyway so the problem lies with the application of the technique and not the technique of carbon-14 itself.

If you have some other examples of prehistoric samples being dated with Carbon-14 I would love to hear it.

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

PS When Xakk, Tea for Tuesday, or anyone else for that matter actually add something worthwhile besides ad hominem attacks I will reply to them. This is a big boy talk and if you can't hang gtfo.

Dodge the bullets and stay in the shadow of ignorance.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Adam and Eve. At some point there had to be a first male and female human.

It's been a while since I've had biology (didn't take it in college i'll admit and don't need to or plan on doing it) but I'm pretty sure species evolve in groups/communities. You cannot evolve with one set of a certain species, if there was only one set they'd be pretty close to extinct.

Instead communities of a certain species will mate (since we are talking about mammals) and over time the community/group will change. Genetic mutations are inevitable and occur all the time and there are mutations in every birth. Over time those with better survival traits, and in our case attractiveness continue living on to give birth.

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that but I'm pretty sure thats the basic gist of it and there was no one time that there were exactly two first humans.

Also don't creationists have a problem with being the descendants of inbred freaks? I guess not...looks at rednecks...

[Vatoreus]

Originally Posted by Kaio

logic

STFU GOD MADE ME FROM DUST!

Anyway...

Yes, that's pretty much the gist of how evolution comes about. There isn't any moment where suddenly modern humans just appeared in society back when cavemen were still bouncing about. Evolution is a slow, time consuming process. Sometimes it seems that creationists learned about evolution from Pokemon...

Homo sapiens idaltu is evolving!