Where are all the pre-Cambrian primates anyway?
Filed under: Evidence, Evolution | Tagged: Evolution, Richard Dawkins |
Author
Recent Comments
The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro… The A-Unicornist, Be… on When I know I’ve beat… Somdeb Lahiri on Thought of the day
For the Sake of Science 
They show up in the wrong date order all the time. So do the rocks around them, but still, in the wrong order.
I understand what he is saying though.
I’m not even sure what you mean.
It happens all the time that the geological strata, and so everything in them, have been jumbled up and they can’t always use radiometric dating to figure it all out.
Different rocks get put in an order that is not linear, but that is the result of tectonic plate action. That doesn’t stop anyone from dating anything.
But they can’t date everything, so some finds have to be ignored and assumed to be anomalies, usually due to some contamination or another.
I’m just not really sure what he was even trying to say, because fossils are somewhat rare and the fossil record is by no means without gaps. Would be surprised if they found a dinosaur fossil dating from 60 million years ago, long after we suppose they all died?
I wouldn’t be, and it would have no bearing on the validity of evolution, just raise questions about how a pocket of animals survived. The same goes for supposed ancestors of some beast or another, that are found to be younger than what they are supposed to have evolved into. Again, so some of them survived and weren’t eliminated by competition with a species they have beget.
Again, no bearing on evolution. On the other hand, if were to dig up the invoice from when God bought all the animals for earth from 12,000 years ago (probably at wal-mart), evolution would become a bit of an issue. For my part I have no trouble believing in unguided evolution, I just don’t find it in conflict with my religious or other personal beliefs.
Rocks are always found in the order in which they should appear. It’s just not always linear.
Dawkins was talking about finding a fossil out of order, not finding one that dates to a slightly older or slightly younger date. A non-flying dinosaur that made it through the asteroid 65 million years ago would be surprising, but it would not say a thing about evolution. One found in the Cambrian, however, would be a shock.
The cornerstone of Christianity is that humans were intended or predestined to exist. That is in overt conflict with evolution. Either you don’t understand your religion or you aren’t a Christian.
I wasn’t trying to say anything about evolution and non-flying dinosaurs, just that the fossil record just isn’t complete enough to guarantee we will ever find dinosaurs outside of the time period where they thrived. As animal populations decline
That may be the cornerstone as you see it, but as I have said before, given the scale of things, trillions of galaxies, even more stars, I would find it more impressive if there was no life. If all the ingredients are there, and they appear to be in great abundance, It’s not a very convincing argument that life wasn’t a guaranteed thing (I mean statistically).
I can believe both ways,
but then again, I’m a man
who looks like a tree
in his spare time and woods.
Life is incredible, no doubt.
Your argument is moot. A specific species was predestined to exist. Nothing is predestined in evolution. Even if I bend over backwards and allow for your statistics argument, you still lose because your god predestined humans on this planet. Your views conflict with science.