Evolving from Simple to Complex?

[hughfarey]

Another interesting collection.

Firstly, I suppose, I have to say thank you to Byblos, who targets my belief in the Resurrection' as a major theme, and queries the refusal, perhaps the inability, of Stu, Rick and Philip to accept that there is any other way of 'believing in the Resurrection' than theirs. However, even among themselves I see a curious contradiction that they might like to resolve, as I think it valid in this specific forum's context. Concerning miracles, Stu and Philip say exactly the opposite. Stu says that "You don't have to understand the intricacies of how something (Miracles) happened" and Philip says that "Hugh, merely admitting that "SOMETHING occurred" is not meeting the criteria of faith as per the specific wordings of Scripture." Which of these, if either, is correct? How much detail of a miracle must one take as literally true before one can say he believes in it? I think the Resurrection was an event which indisputably occurred, and could happily justify this to the most committed atheist. What I would not do is to pretend I knew exactly what happened.

Jesus, thank goodness, did not jump and down on his keyboard hurling punctuation marks and typographical accentuations into the ether in order to convert people to his following. Nor did he derive his authority solely, or even mostly, from Scripture. Quite the reverse. His authority came from his own behaviour and the preaching he derived from the society around him, which he then explained in Scriptural terms. There had been many 'Messiahs' before him (and have been several since), all claiming to derive their authority from Scriptural prophesy, but whose behaviour failed to give them credibility.

Now, back to Science. I think Kurieou and I at least follow each other's thinking for which I am grateful, but I continue to be puzzled by Mazzy.

The question then becomes whether 1) God works in a predictable manner, according to the rules of the world with which we're familiar that he controls at every point, in some logically predictable way that we can break down and understand like E = MC2. OR, 2) Whether God on some fundamental perhaps quantum level of reality, say wiggles strings that He constantly sustains in existence this way or that, in order to bring about new constructions of the necessary particles or like (for example, to add the substance necessary to transform water into wine, given such indeed happened).

Frankly, I don't really know. At the beginning of the century Science seemed to be pointing to a wholly determinate universe, which made philosophers uncomfortable, and relegated God to the distant past at best, so the discovery of truly 'random' events was enthusiastically embraced. However, the increase of the possibility of real "Free Will" seemed to decrease the omniscience of God, who kept having to intervene to correct what went wrong, in increasingly frustrated terms. Reconciling randomness with purpose is an ongoing problem for atheists and theologians alike. One way out is to constrict the boundaries of randomness such that the end result is increasingly predictable after all (throw enough dice and you'll get a predictable number of ones to sixes, but you'll never get a seven) and another is to multiply outcomes (throw enough dice enough times and you'll get one which lands on a six all the time). Some blend of these, and for all I know some other ideas as well, might eventually provide an explanation we're all happy with.

Well one example may be that dog breeders have been trying to breed larger and larger dogs. However, I don't see any dog being able to be bred to be as large as an elephant.

You know this isn't true. Why suggest it? What use would a dog as large as an elephant be?

You wonder about many things hughfarey.

Thanks. That's what makes me a Scientist. Don't you wonder about things?

I will clarify that spontaneous refers to almost instantly...

Yes, that's clear.

...just like a particle of matter is instantaneously created by colliding photons in a Hadron Collider.

And that's gone and muddied it again. To create enough matter, of the right kind, in the right arrangement, by some process analogous to the Large Hadron Collider would involve something akin to a supernova every time. Surely you don't mean that? Just the popping into existence of a breeding pair of kangaroos, say, without a huge explosion, and from nothing at all - that at least is intelligible. Is that it?

You are already a theist, and should agree God can do anything.

Indeed I do. Indeed I have. Here. Many times. The question is not what God could do, but what he did do.

I wonder many things as well about evolution such as what food sources were around for those 'primitive cells', how researchers make entire life stories from a few bones, believe chemical reactions can eventually become a complex factory of reproduction.

Splendid. Now all you have to do is to read some of those papers you have access to and you'll be able to join in the search.

Fortunately, just like evolutionists, creationists shouldn't feel the need to offer an answer to every question, nor offer more substantiation for their beliefs than evolutionists are able to. If the inability to formulate a substantiated answer to every question equates to a nonviable paradigm, then we may say the theory of evolution is still evolving.

I'm not sure I follow this. Evolutionists do want to "offer an answer to every question". As you say, "an inability to formulate a substantiated answer to every question equates to a nonviable paradigm". Hence the ongoing research. Are you saying that all paradigms remain non-viable until every question has been answered? If so, I disagree. Although there are plenty of evolutionary questions that haven't been answered, It has not been established that they cannot be. Indeed, the evidence so far suggests the reverse.

When to comes to the evolutionary tree of life, anything above 'family' and sometimes genus, is a vague accumulation of confusion.

Not at all. You seem to be equating, not for the first time, 'a lack of absolute certainty' with 'a vague accumulation of confusion.' I do not concur with your equation.

I think to be a Christian one may have many beliefs about the stories in the OT and writers interpretation of what they saw as Jesus miracles. The one belief all Christians must have is that Jesus died and rose from the dead. One cannot be a Christian if they are on the fence with this teaching.

Thank goodness we agree on something!

[Philip]

Hugh: Stu says that "You don't have to understand the intricacies of how something (Miracles) happened" and Philip says that "Hugh, merely admitting that "SOMETHING occurred" is not meeting the criteria of faith as per the specific wordings of Scripture." Which of these, if either, is correct?

Hugh, Stu and I actually agree. I don't have to know HOW God did something to believe that He did it. Either we do or don't believe what the Bible plainly teaches about Christ - that unites all Christian across denominations around the world: Belief that God, who is spirit, stepped into a cloak of humanity and became Jesus the man. Jesus was unquestionably killed, and on the third day, came back to life, and appeared to many witnesses. But Christian faith is not just a matter of a rational or intellectual one, believing those things as historical truth, but also of a RELATIONSHIP - that you have submitted yourself to Christ and believe the essentials about Him (Who He is, His death and resurrection), and have asked Him for forgiveness of sins (which is repentance). All those having this relationship should be praying (which is communication with God). Have you done these things, Hugh?

Hugh: How much detail of a miracle must one take as literally true before one can say he believes in it?

"How much detail" of the resurrection? ALL of it - that is, to be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus/fully man, fully God, died a physical death and then arose from the dead. When I say "all" of it - I mean the bare essentials - that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected from the dead - so, no more complicated than that. The in-betweens are just unknown details - it's the end result that is critical one believe. And if one believes those, then they must also have committed themselves to a relationship with Him (that is both in faith and in intention). One just needs to be certain they haven't deluded themselves per merely having an intellectual belief in Christ, or that they were baptized, faithful church attenders, etc. IF they have not come into confessed and desirous relationship to make Him their God - then what they have is not a faith of commitment, of the heart and mind, but ONLY one of intellect - which does not save.

Hugh: I think the Resurrection was an event which indisputably occurred, and could happily justify this to the most committed atheist. What I would not do is to pretend I knew exactly what happened.

Hugh, I'll have to take you at your word that you believe Jesus arose after His death. And I can't see into your mind and heart to know whether or not you have committed yourself in submission and desire to follow Jesus. So, it's this last part that many miss - tragically believing they are saved, but actually do not have a relationship with God. These are not my ideas, but the teachings across the New Testament.

Hugh: Jesus, thank goodness, did not jump and down on his keyboard hurling punctuation marks and typographical accentuations into the ether in order to convert people to his following. Nor did he derive his authority solely, or even mostly, from Scripture.

Actually, Hugh, Scripture IS what God wanted recorded. And the words recorded that He said are His own - perhaps paraphrased, but accurately so. This is what Scripture teaches. But, Hugh, the reason this is an issue that has been brought up is that you have questioned so many aspects of what Scripture teaches. And when you make statements like, "What I would not do is to pretend I knew exactly what happened" (especially concerning the resurrection) - well, that can be misunderstood to mean that you don't know whether it actually occurred, or might be questioning if their could be a rational explanation - that it wasn't truly miraculous. The questions put to you also come from how you tend to doubt the miraculous - trying to understand things within only a rational way - when there are many aspects of Scripture that transcend what can be rationally understood beyond a stated occurrence or outcome. God doesn't provide details HE sees as unnecessary for us. So, please realize, people questioning you are on YOUR side - they want to be certain people don't doubt the essentials of the faith (in heart, mind, confession and of desire to follow Christ).

And, of course, their are mysteries that are fun to explore. And there is a WIDE range of Christian beliefs about those mysteries. Those are all good and fun.

[Mazzy]

Well one example may be that dog breeders have been trying to breed larger and larger dogs. However, I don't see any dog being able to be bred to be as large as an elephant.

You know this isn't true. Why suggest it? What use would a dog as large as an elephant be?

Obviously you are not a country lad or you just didn't think of it. Pig hunters continue to breed dogs as big as they can. I suggested it to expose the ridiculous notion of a single celled organism having the genetic capacity to 'evolve' into life as we see it today.

You wonder about many things hughfarey.

Thanks. That's what makes me a Scientist. Don't you wonder about things?

I'd like to know your scientific credentials. I hold a degree in psychology and social work which includes studies in research methods at least. I have also done biology and chemistry at TAFE level and worked in laboratories.

Sure I am curious. How about we go one to one. You ask me one question abut my beliefs and then I'll ask you one about evolution. We'll see who can present he most substantiated and observed evidence.

The question is not what God could do, but what he did do.

Obviously you have missed the point I was making which is... There is actually OBSERVED and SUBSTANTIATED evidence that matter can be created instantly. However there is no substantiated and observed evidence that any organism has the genetic capacity to evolve from microbe to elephant.

I

[hughfarey]

There is actually OBSERVED and SUBSTANTIATED evidence that matter can be created instantly. However there is no substantiated and observed evidence that any organism has the genetic capacity to evolve from microbe to elephant.

The observed and substantiated evidence that matter can be be created, from energy, instantly, demands that to create enough matter to make a kangaroo you need a huge nuclear explosion. And there cannot be substantiated evidence that a bacteria can eventually evolve into an elephant unless one is prepared to wait a billion years or so. These comparisons are not very meaningful, I''m afraid.

[Mazzy]

When to comes to the evolutionary tree of life, anything above 'family' and sometimes genus, is a vague accumulation of confusion.

Not at all. You seem to be equating, not for the first time, 'a lack of absolute certainty' with 'a vague accumulation of confusion.' I do not concur with your equation.

Well, here is your first chance to demonstrate your scientific knowledge and uphold evolutionary theory.

Miacidae has a 'family' ranking on the evolutionary tree of life. They are a paraphyletic group. "In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few" (Wiki)

Tell us what you and other scientists have as fossil evidence on hand to support that family grouping, hence demonstrating it is a credible taxa and more than a vague accumulation of confusion, as I suggested.

[Mazzy]

There is actually OBSERVED and SUBSTANTIATED evidence that matter can be created instantly. However there is no substantiated and observed evidence that any organism has the genetic capacity to evolve from microbe to elephant.

The observed and substantiated evidence that matter can be be created, from energy, instantly, demands that to create enough matter to make a kangaroo you need a huge nuclear explosion. And there cannot be substantiated evidence that a bacteria can eventually evolve into an elephant unless one is prepared to wait a billion years or so. These comparisons are not very meaningful, I''m afraid.

Don't you believe in nuclear explosions? Additionally, there is fossil evidence of organisms appearing fully formed in the fossil record with no hint of evolving from anything such as insects,angiosperms, Cambrian explosion.

Fossils could support bacteria to an elephant paradigm. Instead evolutionists have rankings like Superfamily Miacoidea and family Miacidae. That are based on nothing. I don't even think scientists have observed a mutation that has crossed the germ line to result in a viable offspring.

[Kurieuo]

Now, back to Science. I think Kurieou and I at least follow each other's thinking for which I am grateful, but I continue to be puzzled by Mazzy.

The question then becomes whether 1) God works in a predictable manner, according to the rules of the world with which we're familiar that he controls at every point, in some logically predictable way that we can break down and understand like E = MC2. OR, 2) Whether God on some fundamental perhaps quantum level of reality, say wiggles strings that He constantly sustains in existence this way or that, in order to bring about new constructions of the necessary particles or like (for example, to add the substance necessary to transform water into wine, given such indeed happened).

Frankly, I don't really know. At the beginning of the century Science seemed to be pointing to a wholly determinate universe, which made philosophers uncomfortable, and relegated God to the distant past at best, so the discovery of truly 'random' events was enthusiastically embraced. However, the increase of the possibility of real "Free Will" seemed to decrease the omniscience of God, who kept having to intervene to correct what went wrong, in increasingly frustrated terms. Reconciling randomness with purpose is an ongoing problem for atheists and theologians alike. One way out is to constrict the boundaries of randomness such that the end result is increasingly predictable after all (throw enough dice and you'll get a predictable number of ones to sixes, but you'll never get a seven) and another is to multiply outcomes (throw enough dice enough times and you'll get one which lands on a six all the time). Some blend of these, and for all I know some other ideas as well, might eventually provide an explanation we're all happy with.

So, just interested to know, in relation to where I say:

Rather, the question then becomes whether 1) God works in a predictable manner, according to the rules of the world with which we're familiar that he controls at every point, in some logically predictable way that we can break down and understand like E = MC². OR, 2) Whether God on some fundamental perhaps quantum level of reality, say wiggles strings that He constantly sustains in existence this way or that, in order to bring about new constructions of the necessary particles or like (for example, to add the substance necessary to transform water into wine, given such indeed happened).

Would you personally more opt for (1), and would (2) actually be off the table to you? Or is your I don't mean, mean you're open to either and simply remain agnostic?

[hughfarey]

Pig hunters continue to breed dogs as big as they can.

No they don't. They breed them as big as they require. Elephant sized dogs would be no use at all. There are many breeds of dog bigger than 'pig hunting' dogs.

I suggested it to expose the ridiculous notion of a single celled organism having the genetic capacity to 'evolve' into life as we see it today.

Then the suggestion was far-fetched. Even if it were true, it does not demonstrate, or even imply, that extensive evolution over billions of years cannot occur.

I hold a degree in psychology and social work

Splendid. My degree is in biology.

Miacidae has a 'family' ranking on the evolutionary tree of life. They are a paraphyletic group. "In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few" (Wiki)

Quite so. However, I'm not sure this bit of information helps you. Are you thinking of 'polyphyletic' by any chance?

Tell us what you and other scientists have as fossil evidence on hand to support that family grouping, hence demonstrating it is a credible taxa and more than a vague accumulation of confusion, as I suggested.

You will find it very well set out in "Carnivoran Evolution: New Views of Phylogeny, Form and Function", 2010, edited by Anjali Goswami and Anthony Fricia. The essence of the carnivore is its carnassial teeth, which can be compared and contrasted in living carnivores, and remarkably large numbers of fossils. A genealogy connecting caniforms and feliforms, by means of an earlier miacid with features common to both, but which cannot be assigned to either, can quite easily be derived. Such studies are systematic and to my mind credible, and certainly not "a vague accumulation of confusion". Of course, a creationist is a liberty to claim that the predecessor was a different "kind" which subsequently became extinct, only to be replaced, by spontaneous creation, by several more, different, "kinds", namely proto-dogs and proto-cats (and proto-bears, etc.), from whom much of the recent carnivore diversity is derived. I just don't find such an explanation credible or satisfactory. And the singular of taxa is taxon.

Don't you believe in nuclear explosions?

What's that about? Are you trying to substantiate your claim that spontaneous creation occurs by something akin to proton bombardment? That new "kinds" were spontaneously created in radioactive craters?

Additionally, there is fossil evidence of organisms appearing fully formed in the fossil record with no hint of evolving from anything such as insects,angiosperms, Cambrian explosion.

Where this makes sense, it isn't true. The first line is meaningless. Of course organisms appear fully formed. All organisms are fully formed. What is a half-formed organism? The second line isn't true. There are several possible precursor fossils for insects and angiosperms, and even some for the Cambrian developments, although obviously animals without hard parts are less likely to be preserved.

Would you personally more opt for (1), and would (2) actually be off the table to you? Or is your I don't mean, mean you're open to either and simply remain agnostic?

Neither represents my ideas perfectly, although probably (1) comes closest. However, I think that from a scientific perspective, some things are genuinely 'random', so that we have no hope of determining the outcome, but that God both knows and has made provision for the results of these random occurrences, 'from before all ages'.

[Mazzy]

You will find it very well set out in "Carnivoran Evolution: New Views of Phylogeny, Form and Function", 2010, edited by Anjali Goswami and Anthony Fricia. The essence of the carnivore is its carnassial teeth, which can be compared and contrasted in living carnivores, and remarkably large numbers of fossils. A genealogy connecting caniforms and feliforms, by means of an earlier miacid with features common to both, but which cannot be assigned to either, can quite easily be derived. Such studies are systematic and to my mind credible, and certainly not "a vague accumulation of confusion". Of course, a creationist is a liberty to claim that the predecessor was a different "kind" which subsequently became extinct, only to be replaced, by spontaneous creation, by several more, different, "kinds", namely proto-dogs and proto-cats (and proto-bears, etc.), from whom much of the recent carnivore diversity is derived. I just don't find such an explanation credible or satisfactory. And the singular of taxa is taxon.

I gather by the above response you are unable to refute my statement being that the rank of family Miacidae is "a vague accumulation of confusion" without any substantial evidence, such as a credible fossil line up, to support this 'family'.

Respectfully, this discussion we are having is not about what is credible in your mind. It is about what method of Gods creation the evidence more strongly supports.

In as much as instant creation is mocked, we have the sea life such as sponges from the Pre-Cambrian, and many kinds of animals similar to those with us today suddenly appearing in the fossil record.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 91511.html
http://theconversation.com/the-oldest-f ... -ago-27710

Yes, the process of fossilization is rare and unlikely to give exact information as to the first breeding pair of an organism or bottlenecks around the days of Noah.

Let's look at wolves.....In this case the dire wolf, that is now extinct.

"However, with the initiation of major fossil recovery efforts at the tar pits of Rancho La Brea, Los Angeles, California, in
1906, an abundance of dire wolf material soon became available, making possible the reconstruction of complete skeletons." ..."Current constraints on the dating of La Brea tar pit deposits is too imprecise to allow exact chronological comparisons with the climatic record, which is known with great precision from ice core data. Nevertheless pit 91 is the most well dated pit, and was deposited about 28 kya,..."
http://fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/document ... s-1999.pdf

"New analysis suggests that remains of a supposed dog dating to 31,680 years ago actually belonged to a wolf, like this one."
http://www.seeker.com/oldest-dog-turns- ... 77713.html

Admittedly I am always skeptical of reconstructions as in the top article, however this is what is available to date. Hence we see wolves appearing in the fossil record rather quickly in geological terms.

Therefore I suggest that on the basis of fossil evidence it appears there is more support for the creationist paradigm of instantaneous creation than an evolutionary one.

[hughfarey]

Well, that's fine. If "too imprecise to allow exact chronological comparisons" means "vague accumulation of confusion" then we are speaking different languages.

"Respectfully, this discussion we are having is not about what is credible in your mind". ....." I suggest that on the basis of fossil evidence it appears there is more support for the creationist paradigm"

If my mind is not important, then I respectfully suggest that neither is yours. You are fighting a brave rearguard action, but you surely recognise that your belief that there is more support for creation than evolution is a minority view, even if it one day turns out to be true. I suspect that a belief in creation by nuclear explosion is an even more minority view, but I'm sure you don't really think that. As I say, spontaneous creation from absolutely nothing makes a lot more sense than that.

[Mazzy]

Well, that's fine. If "too imprecise to allow exact chronological comparisons" means "vague accumulation of confusion" then we are speaking different languages.

"Respectfully, this discussion we are having is not about what is credible in your mind". ....." I suggest that on the basis of fossil evidence it appears there is more support for the creationist paradigm"

If my mind is not important, then I respectfully suggest that neither is yours. You are fighting a brave rearguard action, but you surely recognize that your belief that there is more support for creation than evolution is a minority view, even if it one day turns out to be true. I suspect that a belief in creation by nuclear explosion is an even more minority view, but I'm sure you don't really think that. As I say, spontaneous creation from absolutely nothing makes a lot more sense than that.

Well, my curiosity into a biologists ability to present examples in the fossil evidence to support the evolutionary tree of life relating to the family Miacidae is all I wanted to establish. You can't, and I doubt any one more credentialed could either. It isn't there, and I know it, so....Thanks.

What is credible in anyone's mind is no more than an opinion. I know your opinion. You are a progressive evolutionist. I was hoping you could support your opinion of the evolutionary tree of life around Miacidae with fossil evidence.

Darwin's view was, once upon a time, the minority view. From there evolutionists have persuaded the public and other theists into believing what they have is evidence. Rather what is used to support the evolutionary tree of life is more of a leap of faith, than my belief

[hughfarey]

I was hoping you could support your opinion of the evolutionary tree of life around Miacidae with fossil evidence.

Are you sure? If so, I'll be happy to do so in profusion. But you don't really, do you? What you want is to see the evidence, and announce that because it isn't conclusive proof, it is no more than "vague accumulation of confusion."

The systematics of fossil classification are founded on the fossils themselves, not on arbitrary evolutionary principles. In the case of ammonites, the whole cases are the easiest to group, and in the case of carnivores, it's the carnassial teeth, especially as teeth are so well preserved. Laying out a group of fossils with carnassial teeth - some of them only consisting of the teeth - we can begin by sorting them by age, and then by exactly which teeth are carnassial (or the other way round, if we like). This gives us what appears to be a series of bifurcating sequences which can be interpreted as the diversification of an original canid, felid or whatever into its present variety, by way of numerous extinct species. So far, this is uncontroversial even by creationist standards, who see the diversification as permitted 'variety' within different 'kinds'. However, it is apparent that the older the fossils in each sequence, not only are they less diverse within each kind, but they are also more similar between each kind. This culminates in a series of very old, rather indeterminate teeth, which seem to be allottable (is that a word?) to several, or all of the sequences, if indeed, they can truly be called carnassial at all. At this point the committed creationist will say that these old fossils belong to some ancient 'kind' which has no relation to the subsequent sequences, and that the subsequent sequences were created spontaneously without pre-cursors. They will claim that these 'pre-carnassial' teeth are not carnassial at all, so that all the 'kinds' of animals which do have carnassials appear "fully formed", and with "no hint of evolving from anything", which is more of a sweeping value-judgement than a considered exploration either of the evidence or of the opinions of others who have studied the evidence. Actually these ancient fossils bear good resemblances to what one might predict by following the previous sequences backwards in time and morphology, such than an evolutionary explanation, even if incorrect, is certainly not unreasonable.

As I say, in the case of carnivores I can demonstrate this entire picture, if required. The fossil record of carnivorans is remarkably rich. However, as I explain above, even the most detailed and systematic explanation will not prove a common heritage, and since Mazzy is almost sure to dismiss it as "a vague accumulation of confusion," I can't currently be bothered.

[PaulSacramento]

Or complex to simple as it seems:

http://nautil.us/issue/9/Time/evolution-youre-drunk

Exert:

Amoebas are puny, stupid blobs, so scientists were surprised to learn that they contain 200 times more DNA than Einstein did. Because amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense...

Then molecular analyses did something else. They rearranged the order of branches on evolutionary trees. Biologists pushed aside trees based on how similar organisms looked to one another, and made new ones based on similarities in DNA and protein sequences. The results suggested that complex body parts evolved multiple times and had also been lost. One study found that winged stick insects evolved from wingless stick insects who had winged ancestors. 2 Another analysis suggested that extremely simple animals called acoel worms—a quarter inch long and with just one hole for eating and excreting—evolved from an ancestor with a separate mouth and anus. 3 Biologists’ arrow of time swung forward and backward and forward again.

Late last year, the animal evolutionary tree quaked at its root. A team led by Joseph Ryan, an evolutionary biologist who splits his time between the National Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Md. and the Sars International Center for Marine Molecular Biology in Bergen, Norway, analyzed the genome from a comb jelly, Mnemiopsis leidyi, a complex marine predator with muscles, nerves, a rudimentary brain, and bioluminescence, and found that the animals may have originated before simple sponges, which lack all of those features. 4...

[hughfarey]

Is it unduly prejudiced of me to feel that an article beginning "Amoebas are puny, stupid blobs" may not be the last word in scientific precision? I don't know what criteria were applied to achieve these designations, but amoeba seem to get along pretty well, and have done so for millions of years. Don't dis protists!

[Mazzy]

I was hoping you could support your opinion of the evolutionary tree of life around Miacidae with fossil evidence.

Are you sure? If so, I'll be happy to do so in profusion. But you don't really, do you? What you want is to see the evidence, and announce that because it isn't conclusive proof, it is no more than "vague accumulation of confusion."

The systematics of fossil classification are founded on the fossils themselves, not on arbitrary evolutionary principles. In the case of ammonites, the whole cases are the easiest to group, and in the case of carnivores, it's the carnassial teeth, especially as teeth are so well preserved. Laying out a group of fossils with carnassial teeth - some of them only consisting of the teeth - we can begin by sorting them by age, and then by exactly which teeth are carnassial (or the other way round, if we like). This gives us what appears to be a series of bifurcating sequences which can be interpreted as the diversification of an original canid, felid or whatever into its present variety, by way of numerous extinct species. So far, this is uncontroversial even by creationist standards, who see the diversification as permitted 'variety' within different 'kinds'. However, it is apparent that the older the fossils in each sequence, not only are they less diverse within each kind, but they are also more similar between each kind. This culminates in a series of very old, rather indeterminate teeth, which seem to be allottable (is that a word?) to several, or all of the sequences, if indeed, they can truly be called carnassial at all. At this point the committed creationist will say that these old fossils belong to some ancient 'kind' which has no relation to the subsequent sequences, and that the subsequent sequences were created spontaneously without pre-cursors. They will claim that these 'pre-carnassial' teeth are not carnassial at all, so that all the 'kinds' of animals which do have carnassials appear "fully formed", and with "no hint of evolving from anything", which is more of a sweeping value-judgement than a considered exploration either of the evidence or of the opinions of others who have studied the evidence. Actually these ancient fossils bear good resemblances to what one might predict by following the previous sequences backwards in time and morphology, such than an evolutionary explanation, even if incorrect, is certainly not unreasonable.

Wow, this above is a lot of repeating what I already know evolutionists are suggesting. A few teeth, a jaw, the odd bone, is meant to be 'a series of bifurcating sequences', that supposedly demonstrate how miacidae evolved into a plethora of Genus. That is not evidence hugh. That is grasping as straws trying to support a story. I understand this is what evolutionists need to do. The public have been fooled into thinking evolutionists actually have 'strong' evidence. If I made up a story about a few teeth or jaw to suit my paradigm, I can only imagine what the comeback would sound like, let alone if I tried to publish such work.

Then you jump to Canids. I have already stated that dogs bones (Canids) are bound to be in that vague mess of Miacidae. Dentition reflects diet, not dogs and cats having evolved from some marten like creature. If there ever was a credible fossil found that was marten like, then may I suggest it's most likely to be a marten.

According to evolutionists the cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present. There is also caniformia, that would be cats, dogs, seals, walrus etc. I don't need to make up stories about a few teeth or bones. They could be anything. It is complete or near complete fossils that tell the true story. However, evolutionists can't have seals, dogs, cats, walrus, bears suddenly appearing in the fossil record, so they have made up other words in support of evolution.

As I say, in the case of carnivores I can demonstrate this entire picture, if required. The fossil record of carnivorans is remarkably rich. However, as I explain above, even the most detailed and systematic explanation will not prove a common heritage, and since Mazzy is almost sure to dismiss it as "a vague accumulation of confusion," I can't currently be bothered.

You were required and, No, you can't. You can't produce any fossil record that has credibility. I will not dismiss complete or near complete fossil remains. Rather you can present pages of research turning a few teeth and single bones into an entire tale. If you could present 'the entire picture' based on robust fossil evidence, you would have done so by now.