Stick Page Forums Archive

Biological Evolution: For or against and why

Started by: iRakodai | Replies: 101 | Views: 6,472

iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 11:08 AM #634778
Quote from Chimaera
That article has a massive misunderstanding of evolution... It doesn't have to be beneficial (Though it helps!) the famous example of beneficial evolution is the peppered moth, which started off with varied colourings, and due to the dark coloured surroundings the lighter moths were easier to kill; over a few hundred years the lighter moths had died out and the fitter, darker moths had survived and passed on their genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Just looking at our own genetics, or the work done on mapping the human genome; we're primates, we're something crazy like 99% (V95%V), there's no doubt we share a common ancestor


Thats just natural selection. The dark colored moths existed the whole time, they just became more common.
And as far as our genetics, Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 69% with rats and 67% with mice, and Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans.
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25335-Percentage-of-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-animals)
Does this mean we evolved from these creatures because we are similar? Chimpanzees will obviously have the most similarities because they look similar. If they didn't exist though, we would be saying things like "we must have evolved from cats because: evolution is true, Everything evolved from different species, and cats are the most similar to us of any animals, so there is your proof! Evolution must be true!"
They would them feature pictures of a cat, then a cat on two legs hunched over, then a cat more upright with less fur, (and so on and so forth.)
Long story short, our genetics are proof of evolution only if you already believe that mutations are able to bridge that gap.
Zed
2

Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 11:24 AM #634781
Cats and humans shared a common ancestor too. Just slightly further back.
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 2:05 PM #634872
My point was to show that most evidence depends purely on presuppositions. Many times, you may think something obviously points toward evolution, and you don't understand how I could see differently. The fact is though, Most evidence is completely neutral, it all depends on if you believed in evolution or creation beforehand. Similarities in design and genetics could mean a common decent or a common creator. In the "fossil record", the back of a skull that has a structure similar to a whale could be interpreted as evidence that whales evolved from land mammals or as a separate species that went extinct. As far as cats and humans evolving from similar origins, how could we make that assumption?

Lets face it, the "fossil record", has virtually endless ambiguities and has made incredible botches in the past, and therefore, can't really be used as a source of valid evidence.

An example of some of the ambiguities in nature is in the ground. The layers in the earth that are said to represent billions of years, could have been laid over billions of years, unless you believe a catastrophic worldwide flood deposited the separate layers very quickly (a likely conclusion considering the number of trees found fossilized upright through multiple layers).
We cannot even tell how old the earth is. Radiometric dating methods are good in theory, but have been proven not to work in reality. Carbon 14 dating methods assume that the carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere have been constant (which they aren't) so it isn't valid. Dating by using the layers in the earth depends on the validity of a worldwide flood (as mentioned before).
Consider the fact that this debate has been going on for some time, the answer isn't obvious unless you already believe evolution is true, and that evidence is always ignored or expounded depending on what your presuppositions are, and how scientifically accurate you remain despite what you believe. Throughout this, please consider these things before you present your facts. I know that virtually everyone but me on this thread believes in evolution so you find it hard to believe why anyone wouldn't believe in the obvious fact of nature that is common decent. I am in the same boat, but on the opposite viewpoint.
Please don't just say "This is what happened". That means absolutely nothing to me Zed. Present the observable evidence we have today.
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 2:24 PM #634897
Quote from Exilement

'kay.

"Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome. Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve. This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors. For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene."

There are plenty of examples of gene duplication adding to the genome and allowing for the creation of new favorable traits, like trichromacy in humans and primates.


As far as color vision, Please provide a link to some valid source where this has been verified by tests. As far as I remember, we have never actually witnessed that happen, they only think that happened because they believe that all creatures became more and more complex.

We can't just say "this is here so it must have evolved to be here" We have to bring into question evolution itself (and by this I put most emphasis on common decent, sorry about the confusion earlier) .
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 2:26 PM #634900
As far as the duplication goes, yes, but that information was already there, there is just more of it now. No NEW information was created.
Zed
2

Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 3:04 PM #634940
Oh man, look what I pulled out from one of my first few dozen posts.


Quote from Zed
Noah's Ark is said, according to simple calculations based on the dimentions in the Bible, to have a storage capacity of 1,500,000 cubic feet (one and a half million for those who think I can't count my zeros). That comes to 2,592,000,000 cubic inches which is about the area taken up by your average beetle (the most common type of animal) allowing enough room to stretch wings but no more, and therefore the modal unit of space taken up by a single creature on the Ark (I'm being generous at this stage, lots of animals are much bigger). The total number of species is about 6,125,000 (source: http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question23697.html). If we allow for two of each (the Bible actually says seven for the clean animals but again, I'm generous) that's 12,500,000 animals on this Ark. That would be fine if all of them were beetles, but a single elephant takes up 2,500,000 and there are six of them involved (the forest elephant is recognised as a seperate species from the African and Indian). In fact there going to be over forty thousand larger animals involved. Space is constrained at this stage but just about manageable, assuming that all of the animals are packed as efficiently as possible, but now we have to bring in forty days worth of food for each animal. Sorry, no chance. And that food has to be distributed correctly to twelve million differant species each day - by eight people. That's 11.6 animals per second, each, assuming none of them want to sleep at any point. Not to mention how long it will take to get all these animals on board. Or the time taken for Noah to find and catch a polar bear. Or the difficulty in stopping said polar bear eating the seals. Noah taken literally is impossible.


I'm not buying your global flood hypothesis. And we haven't even gone into the amount of water required.

Better explanation: The few trees fossilised upright were caught in mudslides. Everything else is as expected. Also, if the layers of sediment were laid down by a flood you would expect the fossils to be in the wrong order. The only things you've managed to come up with are trees starting in the right place and then maybe going through to the wrong place. Why do we not find rabbits next to dinosaurs? Why do we not find homo erectus next to homo sapien? Also, can I get a link to one of these fossilised trees you keep mentioning? And something about the inaccuracy of carbon dating, because again I've looked and I can't see any reason it shouldn't work. Just acknowledgements that you need to be careful about the calibration.

And also, zircon crystals. The way they're formed allows for radiometric dating from uranium which places them at lesat four billion years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating
Arch-Angel
2

Posts: 9,496
Joined: Jan 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 3:09 PM #634943
iRakodai, you need to edit start editing your posts instead of multi-posting.

I would love to join in on this one, but I never really paid any attention in my science classes. I could link you all to some Bill Nye The Science Guy videos. That's about it.

Edit: Zed, I rather enjoyed reading your story about Noah. He probably had about 20-40 different species at most. How in the fuck is someone supposed to catch two lions.
Perhaps the flood wasn't worldwide. Considering the population at the time and where they were located, it would be unheard of to flood the entire world. Could Noah really have made it all the way to South America, Western Europe, Africa, or perhaps even Australia if it had existed? Then again I suppose all of this could have happened in the time of Pangea before the whole mess with the tectonic plates shifting. Even if this was the case, there are still seven or eight continents to explore (considering where India was at the time). A worldwide flood was more than likely not the case, but rather a typhoon of some sort that killed a whole lot of people and crazy Uncle Noah got lucky with his suspicions about a flood. As far as fossilized trees, several floods in valley type areas, mud slides, erosion causing massive flooding from natural dams could have all caused trees to be fossilized by large sediment deposits.

Here's some speculation about the future of evolution. We are constantly evolving and making adaptations (short term evolution) such as our bodies building up a resistance or immunity to certain drugs. What is in store for long term evolution? We have different forms of evolution, Homo Erectus, Habilis, etc. If our bodies had naturally evolved in order to be able to run and lift heavier objects to survive in the wild, what happens now that technology has advanced the way it has? Our muscle structures won't evolve in order to run faster or for longer periods of time considering now we have vehicles. Considering the obesity issue we have evolutions in the stomach and digestive system seem very likely. I think it would be neat to see how things end up if we manage to survive another million years or so.

I'm just speculating of course. So no sources to cite.
Vorpal
2

Posts: 11,944
Joined: Jul 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 6:09 PM #635064
We're gonna grow extra fingers so we can type and use our electronic devices better.
Depressing that it's probably true, lol facebook.
Fusion
Banned

Posts: 4,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 14, 2012 8:08 PM #635147
@Arch-Angel: The "world" at the supposed time of the Biblical flood probably just means the Middle East, because there wasn't really exploration back then and people in the Bible didn't really know that things like Australia and the Americas even existed. Saying, "There's no way he could fit all of the animals of the world on one boat" is a bad way of disproving the story of the Ark, but a similar argument can still be used, because of the fact that there are still a ton of animals in just that region.

I don't think the obesity epidemic would be a likely candidate for influencing the evolution of humans, because this presupposes that it will be a serious problem for many thousands of years, which isn't a very good assumption.
Zed
2

Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 15, 2012 2:07 PM #635457
Quote from Fusion
@Arch-Angel: The "world" at the supposed time of the Biblical flood probably just means the Middle East, because there wasn't really exploration back then and people in the Bible didn't really know that things like Australia and the Americas even existed. Saying, "There's no way he could fit all of the animals of the world on one boat" is a bad way of disproving the story of the Ark, but a similar argument can still be used, because of the fact that there are still a ton of animals in just that region.


I'm sure the Bible was based on a much smaller flood, but I was specifically rejecting the argument iRakodai was using to explain layers of sediment. He requires a completely global flood.
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 15, 2012 8:27 PM #635657
Zed,
In the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study4, creationist researcher John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark.

The Ark did not need to carry every kind of animal—nor did God command it. It carried only air-breathing, land-dwelling animals, creeping things, and winged animals such as birds. Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark. This cuts down significantly the total number of animals that needed to be on board.

Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah. Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth.5 For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.

Creationist estimates for the maximum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from a few thousand to 35,000, but they may be as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification.

As stated before, Noah wouldn’t have taken the largest animals onto the Ark; it is more likely he took juveniles aboard the Ark to repopulate the earth after the Flood was over. These younger animals also require less space, less food, and have less waste.

Using a short cubit of 18 inches (46 cm) for the Ark to be conservative, Woodmorappe’s conclusion is that “less than half of the cumulative area of the Ark’s three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures.”6 This meant there was plenty of room for fresh food, water, and even many other people.
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

And to address the polystrate trees,
Alternating beds of sandstone, siltstone, and shale are exposed along the banks of the Bay of Fundy, known for its extreme tidal range. Here the difference between the water's elevation of high tide and low tide is over 50 feet!2 This leads to continual erosion of the cliff and continual exposure of new fossils. The strata sequence, dipping to the south at about 25 degrees, is approximately 14,000 feet thick, measured perpendicularly to the originally horizontal bedding. The individual beds are interspersed with scores of layers of coal. Lyell's partner, Sir William Dawson, recorded some 85 coal horizons, ranging in thickness from just a few inches to thick enough to be mined by underground mining methods. As one walks northerly along the banks of the Bay, one encounters beds deposited ever earlier in time, since the lower beds must have been deposited first. In standard thinking, this thick sequence of beds was laid down over a 10-million-year period of time, from 310 to 300 million years ago.

Two schools of thought exist within uniformitarian geologists, who variously interpret these beds as: (1) a flood plain in which a river occasionally overflowed its banks, burying the surrounding marsh in mud; and as (2) a coastal plain occasionally inundated by rising oceans. In both cases, sediments are assumed to have been building up as the underlying basin subsided, with deposition keeping up with sinking.3 The coal beds are thought to record a recurring swampy bog, where organic materials collected for hundreds of years, only to be buried either by river flooding or sea level rises. Over time thick layers of mud and sand would collect, later to be uplifted and returned to a swamp condition. However, the exacting conditions necessary for peat bog formation strain the credibility of 85 swamps forming in exactly the same location over 10 million years, with long hiatuses in between. Local channel infillings can be seen, as can fossil trackways, ripple marks, raindrop pits, and cross bedding. The ever-present nature of these features hardened in the rocks, argues against a normal swamp, for the extensive bioturbation in a swamp would annihilate them in just a few years. Rapid burial and preservation seems to be required.
Fossils

A variety of fossils can be found here, from fish to clams to snails to ferns. They are considered to be primarily freshwater and terrestrial, but the tubeworm, Spirorbis, almost certainly marine or brackish, points to a mixing of environments.4

The most impressive fossils are the upright lycopod trees. They bear little resemblance to their modern vine-like counterparts, for the stems of these fossil "vines" are thick tree trunks, up to one meter in diameter. The two most common types found are Lepidodendron and Sigilaria, which grew to over 30 feet in height. These trees had overlapping scalelike bark with a pithy inner pulp. The fossils themselves have lost their pulp and all that remains is a cylinder of coalified bark filled with sediments often different from the surrounding material. The fossils remain only as upright stumps usually from 2-10 feet tall—sometimes much taller.

Inside the once hollow, now sediment-filled stumps are sometimes found the bodies of lizard-like amphibians and reptiles. Horizontal logs are rare, but are usually flattened, crushed by overlying sediment. The roots or rootlets of the trees, called Stigmaria, are often seen separated from the main trunks.

Uniformitarian geology, the mainstream view ever since Lyell, holds that these trees grew in the place where they are now found. It is supposed that surrounding the base of the trees, a layer of forest litter collected, which if thick enough, could become peat. The trees eventually died when sediments buried their roots and lower sections. Finally, the tops broke off, and the insides were hollowed. Animals living in the swamp were trapped inside the hollow trees and were entombed. Temporary flooding buried the sequence under several feet of mud. In time, the peat turned to coal while the surface mud supported another forest and the cycle repeated. Some of the partially buried dead stumps remained intact and penetrated through the overlying shale, sandstone, and accumulating layers of forest litter, existing today as polystrate (i.e., "many strata") fossils. Surely there is a more satisfying explanation.
Arguments for Rapid Sedimentation

Dr. Harold Coffin has listed several reasons (summarized and extended below) to consider that the trees have been moved to this location, washed in during a time of extensive and massive sedimentation.5

A distinctive soil level is missing. Only a few of the trees arise from the organic coal layers. Often the trees rest on top of a coal seam, but roots seldom penetrate into it as they would if the tree grew in a peat bog. Those stumps arising from non-organic layers have no possible soil present.
The vertical stumps often penetrate two or more strata, including thin seams of coal. Often they overlap other trees, arising from overlying layers. A dead, hollow, and submerged stump could not persist for the long period of time necessitated for a second forest to grow and collect as peat.
Segments of roots are often found inside the once-hollow trunks, while other fossil roots are normally detached and buried in the surrounding soil. This seems to be a very unlikely scenario for any growth in situ hypothesis.
Leaves seldom remain on a forest or swamp floor for long periods without decay, yet well preserved fossil leaves are abundant, thus indicating rapid burial.
Some of the fossilized trees are inclined, not directly in vertical growth positions. A few are found upside down. None of the tree root systems are complete; all have been truncated.
The marine tubeworm, Spirorbis, frequently found in fossilized association with the fossil trees, implies that all were exposed to seawater.
The surrounding sandstones are crossbedded, implying rapidly moving water.
The hollow vertical trees are typically filled with different sediments than the surrounding matrix. The internal sediments are themselves crossbedded.
The long axis of both the partial roots and the rootlets have a preferred orientation as would result from movement, not growth in place. The direction parallels current direction as discerned from ripple marks and crossbedding.
-http://www.icr.org/article/445/

Its a lot of information Zed, but consider it a compliment.
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 15, 2012 8:38 PM #635662
Also, to address the worldwide flood,

Evidence #1—Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
(I know that this is explained by saying the mountains were once under the sea, but do you honestly think that every spot of land was under the sea at some time or other while life was in the ocean?)

Evidence #2—Rapid burial of plants and animals.

We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Evidence #4—Sediment transported long distances.

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global flood.
Evidence #5—Rapid or no erosion between strata.

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

Lastly, If you believe in a perfect, omnipotent God that created the universe, why do you think He is to weak to create a worldwide flood, or why do you think he would lie about having a worldwide flood?
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 15, 2012 8:48 PM #635670
Zed and Arch-angel,
I will not edit my posts. My internet can barely handle posting as it is.
Also, the amount of water?
Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
Common misconception is that the water JUST came from the atmosphere. In the Bible it clearly states that all water reservoirs under ground burst open and provided water too.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 15, 2012 9:10 PM #635677
Quote from iRakodai
Evidence #1—Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
(I know that this is explained by saying the mountains were once under the sea, but do you honestly think that every spot of land was under the sea at some time or other while life was in the ocean?)


Uh, yeah, kind of. The fossils found in the grand canyon are hundreds of millions of years old. Same with the himalayas, which have only existed for about 70 millions years. Their altitude now isn't the same as it was half a billion years ago and doesn't prove anything.



We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand).


It was deposited by a sea and took about 40 million years to form, there's nothing catastrophic about that.

Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia.


I can't find anything that actually supports these claims, but like I said, the earth looked extremely different back when these layers were formed.

Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.


"‘The Coconino Sandstone contains spectacular cross bedding, vertebrate track fossils, and pitted and frosted sand grain surfaces. All these features are consistent with formation of the Coconino as desert sand dunes. The sandstone is composed almost entirely of quartz grains, and pure quartz sand does not form in floods . . . no flood of any size could have produced such deposits of sand . . .’"

The fact that they're sloped doesn't prove anything at all. Oh, and

"Above the Coconino Sandstone is the Toroweap Formation and below is the Hermit Formation, both of which geologists agree are made up of sediments that were either deposited by and/or in water. 5,6 How could there have been a period of dry desert conditions in the middle of the Flood year when ‘all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered’ (Genesis 7:19) by water?"

I'm honestly not even interested in responding to the rest of these. It's tedious. Virtually everything you're saying is conjecture, it's a very stretched interpretation of geological findings meant to prove their claims while ignoring the massive body of evidence that would render them impossible.
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 15, 2012 11:36 PM #635756
First,
"The footprint trackways in the Coconino Sandstone have recently been re-examined in the light of experimental studies by Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda University in California.8 His research program involved careful surveying and detailed measurements of 82 fossilized vertebrate trackways discovered in the Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon. He then observed and measured 236 experimental trackways made by living amphibians and reptiles in experimental chambers. These tracks were formed on sand beneath the water, on moist sand at the water’s edge, and on dry sand, the sand mostly sloping at an angle of 25 degrees, although some observations were made on slopes of 15deg; and 20° for comparison. Observations were also made of the underwater locomotion of five species of salamanders (amphibians) both in the laboratory and in their natural habitat, and measurements were again taken of their trackways.

A detailed statistical analysis of these data led to the conclusion, with a high degree of probability that the fossil tracks must have been made underwater. Whereas the experimental animals produce footprints under all test conditions, both up and down the 25° slopes of the laboratory ‘dunes’, all but one of the fossil trackways could only have been made by the animals in question climbing uphill. Toe imprints were generally distinct, whereas the prints of the soles were indistinct. These and other details were present in over 80% of the fossil, underwater and wet sand tracks, but less than 12% of the dry sand and damp sand tracks had any toe marks. Dry sand uphill tracks were usually just depressions, with no details. Wet sand tracks were quite different from the fossil tracks in certain features. Added to this, the observations of the locomotive behaviour of the living salamanders indicated that all spent the majority of their locomotion time walking on the bottom, underwater, rather than swimming.

Putting together all of his observations, Dr Brand thus came to the conclusion that the configurations and characteristics of the animals trackways made on the submerged sand surfaces most closely resembled the fossilized quadruped trackways of the Coconino Sandstone. Indeed, when the locomotion behaviour of the living amphibians is taken into account, the fossilized trackways can be interpreted as implying that the animals must have been entirely under water (not swimming at the surface) and moving upslope (against the current) in an attempt to get out of the water. This interpretation fits with the concept of a global Flood, which overwhelmed even four-footed reptiles and amphibians that normally spend most of their time in the water.

Not content with these initial studies, Dr Brand has continued (with the help of a colleague) to pursue this line of research. He recently published further results,9 which were so significant that a brief report of their work appeared in Science News10 and Geology Today. 11

His careful analysis of the fossilized trackways in the Coconino Sandstone, this time not only from the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon but from other trails and locations, again revealed that all but one had to have been made by animals moving up cross bed slopes. Furthermore, these tracks often show that the animals were moving in one direction while their feet were pointing in a different direction. It would appear that the animals were walking in a current of water, not air. Other trackways start or stop abruptly, with no sign that the animals’ missing tracks were covered by some disturbance such as shifting sediments. It appears that these animals simply swam away from the sediment.

Because many of the tracks have characteristics that are ‘just about impossible’ to explain unless the animals were moving underwater, Dr Brand suggested that newt-like animals made the tracks while walking under water and being pushed by a current. To test his ideas, he and his colleague videotaped living newts walking through a laboratory tank with running water. All 238 trackways made by the newts had features similar to the fossilized trackways in the Coconino Sandstone, and their videotaped behaviour while making the trackways thus indicated how the animals that made the fossilized trackways might have been moving.

These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood."

If you think these tests are conjecture, Your argument is between you and Dr. Brand.
Second,

"A considerable body of evidence is now available which indicates that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited by the ocean, and not by desert accumulation of sand dunes as emphatically maintained by most evolutionary geologists, including Christians like Davis Young. The cross beds within the Coconino Sandstone (that is, the inclined beds of sand within the overall horizontal layer of sandstone) are excellent evidence that ocean currents moved the sand rapidly as dune-like mounds called sand waves.14

Figure 5 (right) shows the way sand waves have been observed to produce cross beds in layers of sand. The water current moves over the sand surface building up mounds of sand. The current erodes sand from the ‘up-current’ side of the sand wave and deposits it as inclined layers on the ‘down-current’ side of the sand wave. Thus the sand wave moves in the direction of current flow as the inclined strata continue to be deposited on the down-current side of the sand wave. Continued erosion of sand by the current removes both the up-current side and top of the sand wave, the only part usually preserved being just the lower half of the down-current side. Thus the height of the cross beds preserved is just a fraction of the original sand wave height. Continued transportation of further sand will result in repeated layers containing inclined cross beds. These will be stacked up on each other.

Sand waves have been observed on certain parts of the ocean floor and in rivers, and have been produced in laboratory studies. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that the sand wave height is related to the water depth.15 As the water depth increases so does the height of the sand waves which are produced. The heights of the sand waves are approximately one-fifth of the water depth. Similarly, the velocities of the water currents that produce sand waves have been determined.

Thus we have the means to calculate both the depth and velocity of the water responsible for transporting as sand waves the sand that now makes up the cross beds of the Coconino Sandstone. The thickest sets of cross beds in the Coconino Sandstone so far reported are 30 feet (9 metres) thick.16 Cross beds of that height imply sand waves at least 60 feet (18 metres) high and a water depth of around 300 feet (between 90 and 95 metres). For water that deep to make and move sand waves as high as 60 feet (18 metres) the minimum current velocity would need to be over 3 feet per second (95 centimetres per second) or 2 miles per hour. The maximum current velocity would have been almost 5.5 feet per second (165 cm or 1.65 metres per second) or 3.75 miles per hour. Beyond that velocity experimental and observational evidence has shown that flat sand beds only would be formed.

Now to have transported in such deep water the volume of sand that now makes up the Coconino Sandstone these current velocities would have to have been sustained in the one direction perhaps for days. Modern tides and normal ocean currents do not have these velocities in the open ocean, although deep-sea currents have been reported to attain velocities of between 50 cm and 250 cm (2.5 metres) per second through geographical restrictions. Thus catastrophic events provide the only mechanism, which can produce high velocity ocean currents over a wide area. "


Look, Exilement, I can provide pages and pages of data, and you can deny it all till your blue in the face. If its so tedious to respond, then just stop trying. The only reason to continue is to prove it to yourself because almost everyone else here already believes evolution

Evolution itself is just conjecture. It cannot be proved by science, in fact, it is dis proven by observable science. Therefore, it is just philosophy. The reason it has lasted this long, is because there is only one alternative. Who wants to believe there is a God that governs what we do? You certainly don't.
Website Version: 1.0.4
© 2025 Max Games. All rights reserved.