Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Sean Pitman.
What is odd here though is that all the “feathered†dinosaurs show up in the fossil record some 30 million years after the appearance of the first true birds (according to mainstream dating methods). So, what “evolved†first? – Sean Pitman
Good question. When you say “First Bird,†I’m assuming you mean Archaeopteryx which is considered by many as the first true bird, and you are right to say that the famous examples of “feathered dinosaurs†appear in the fossil record several millions of years after Archeaopteryx… BUT there is a NEW piece of evidence that I think you would find interesting: In 2008, a new fossil dinosaur was discovered that is now called Anchiornis, and it was announced in September, 2009. What makes this fossil speciman valid for asking your question is that is has been dated to have lived between 160 to 155 Million years ago. That is to say, Anchiornis lived between 10 to 15 million years before Archeaopteryx!!
To answer your question, what this would mean is that the “feathered dinosaurs†would have evolved first, BUT that MOST of the fossil examples are not ancestral to modern birds, but rather are retaining ancestral traits.
What this seems to mean to me is that these fossils are very rare and that the more one looks and finds the occasional rare fossil, the more it appears that all of these creatures lived at about the same time and overlapped each other. The “first example” of many different kinds of living things within the fossil record is continually being pushed farther and farther back in time as new “older” discoveries are made of all kinds of things.
For example, it according to mainstream thinking Anchiornis is about 30 Ma older than the next youngest, and more “dino-likeâ€, troodontid. This means mainstream scientists must postulate a much earlier evolutionary history than actually demonstrated in the fossil record.
Also, this really doesn’t solve the problem of mechanism. It is nice to assume and tell stories about how this evolved into that given an apparent sequence within the fossil record. However, it could also be that the apparent distribution in the fossil record is reflective of other factors besides time. In other words, it is possible that these creatures lived at or very close to the same time, but were buried in the sequence in which they are found for other reasons – such as ecological or various other sorting factors. Even the relative abundance of a species plays into the odds of when it is likely to “first appear” in the fossil record.
For example, “Generally, species that use a wide range of resources or tolerate a variety of abiotic conditions can establish more populations in more places than comparable species with relatively narrow niches (Brown, 1995; Cook and Quinn, 1995). Differences in the ability of species to distribute themselves across space have distinct consequences for the structure of communities. Sites that encompass a greater area tend to have more species (Rosenzweig, 1995). This is because large areas include a subset of species not found elsewhere. Therefore, the nested subset pattern of species distribution in space is thought to reflect the gradient in abundance among species (Gaston, 1996; Leitner and Rosenzweig, 1997; Maurer, 1999). . . [These features are consistent with the hypothesis of] “isolated habitat ‘islands’.”
Using this line of reasoning, one might reasonable hypothesize that trilobites appear in the fossil record before crabs and lobsters at least party because of the relative abundance of trilobites compared to crabs and lobsters. This hypothesis is at least plausible given the evidence that, “Species identities and their relative abundances are non-random properties of communities that persist over long periods of ecological time and across geographic space. This is consistent with species abundance contributing heavily to evolutionary patterns.”
http://www.fw.msu.edu/~maurerb/Documents/jjar1291.pdf
So, what looks like an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record may simple be reflective of something else – like relative species abundance for example.
This hypothesis is further strengthened by the evidence of a significant limitation of the mechanism of RM/NS to produce novel functional differences beyond very very low levels of functional complexity in a reasonable period of time (i.e., this side of trillions of years of time). Again, the difficulty for mainstream evolutionary theories is not in explaining similarities, but in explaining high level functional differences.
This hypothesis is also strengthened by the significant evidence countering mainstream assumptions based on radiometric dating that the fossil record and geologic column were formed rapidly and in much more recent history than mainstream theories suggest… to include the evidence of very common very well preserved elastic soft tissues and proteins in all or nearly all dinosaur bones – as already noted above in this thread.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Phil Mills:
One of these frequent posters claims to be a Young Earth Creationists, but believes in creation based on what he refers to as “faith.†One could get the idea that he fears that anything scientifically shown to support creation is actually bad since it would then somehow require less faith to believe. His faith, however, is more akin to the Catholic student who is reported to have said, “Faith is what you believe that you know ain’t so.â€
This is not Biblical faith. Neither is it the faith of the Adventist pioneers. It certainly doesn’t build faith, it actually destroys genuine faith. This pseudofaith more closely resembles a mere superstitious belief. It is no surprise that agnostics, evolutionists, and other doubters have such an affinity for those who possess this kind of “faith†on this site. Why wouldn’t they agree with it. It doesn’t threaten them in any way. It bolsters their ranks. It confirms their unbelief since they already believe faith is unreasonable.
I couldn’t have said it better myself…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent:
Of course it’s a good thing; I never said it was bad. The problem is when you and Pitman maintain that empirical evidence from nature is essential to validate the Bible–and that is heresy and blasphemy.
You yourself made this “blasphemous” claim when you listed off several empirical evidences, like fulfilled prophecy (based on empirical investigation of real history), as reasons why you believe the Bible to be superior to other books claiming to be the true Word of God.
Here is what you wrote:
In short, there is ample evidence to support the Bible and Christianity, including fulfilled prophecy, the lives and testimony of the apostles, archeology, the impact of the Bible on personal lives, and so forth. All of this is “empirical evidence†that goes beyond what is needed to establish the validity of scripture. The other religions are confronted with serious shortcomings on these issues, in my opinion… – Professor Kent
Now, if the Holy Spirit is enough, as the Latter-day Saints believe, to lead you into all truth without having to use your brain, why did you appeal to these empirical evidences to support your belief or faith in the superior credibility of the Bible vs. other competing options held in higher regard by other faiths? Why didn’t you just appeal to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking directly to you as evidence enough?
So, the argument here isn’t really over the need for an empirical basis for one’s faith in the Bible before it can be considered rational. You yourself appeal to such. You admit to the need for an empirical argument as the basis for choosing the Bible over other competing options. You’ve made this argument several times now. Therefore, the real argument here is in regard to your notion that the empirical basis, or “weight of empirical evidence” for faith never changes or needs to be re-examined in any way over time – despite the discovery of new evidence and information?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@krissmith777:
You missed my overall point. The first sentence I quoted from it was: The rates at which sediments accumulate vary enormously, owing to the natural variability of the processes that produce and transport sediments. — The rates vary greatly depending on the conditions… Your argument pre-supposes that the rate has not changed, and you have not demonstrated that it has. — And frankly, it doesn’t have to be.
You misunderstand the “rate” that the author is talking about here. This rate is not the overall rate of ocean sedimentation which is in fact fairly constant at ~30 billion tons per year. I’ve already tried to explain this to you, but the variability your reference is talking about is the local variability that is indeed due to many factors of sediment transport within the oceans themselves. This local variability does not affect the overall sediment load that is consistently delivered to the oceans.
— David E. Thomas says it much better than I ever could:
…much sediment never gets to the ocean floor, but is trapped instead on continental slopes and shelves, or in huge river deltas. Over the years, some of these continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment, while others can even become part of mountain ranges in continental plate-to-plate collisions. Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not good clocks.
Indeed, and my calculations take into account all the sediment currently in the oceans, to include the sediment on continental slopes and shelves and river deltas. The total amount of sediment, taking all of these factors into account, is only 10^17 tons. That tonnage can be explained in just 15 million years. That’s a huge problem for mainstream theories of plate tectonics and the proposed age of ocean basins. Your arguments about the variability of sedimentation for different parts of the ocean floor are completely irrelevant to explaining the total tonnage that is currently in the oceans regardless of its location.
I heard one geologist call it a “crude†dating method. Looks more related to “relative dating,†not “absolute dating.â€
Again, you’re looking at local rates of accumulation over time, not the overall rate of accumulation over time. You’re confusing two separate concepts here. They aren’t the same thing.
Again, that is completely irrelevant to the point that the total amount of sediment, the total tonnage that is current in the oceans, irrespective of its location within the ocean basins, can be explained given just 15 million years… – Sean Pitman
And the paper I linked a while ago using the current rate gave the figure of 100 million years: (“At a rate of 0.5 cm (.2 in)/1000 years, it takes only 100 million years to accumulate 500 m (1600 ft) of sediment,â€)
Indeed – the local rate of sediment accumulation on some areas of the ocean floor may indeed be this slow. Again, however, this is completely irrelevant to the fact that the total sediment contained by all the oceans in the whole world, to include the sediment that is on or close to the continent shelves, is far far too low for them to be nearly as old as mainstream scientists propose…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
