20 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

No, fossiliferous is correct

Both "fossiliferous" and "paleontological" are related to fossils and evolution, but they are used differently and have different scopes.

Fossiliferous describes the strata or rocks in which fossils are found. E.g. fossiliferous limestone.

The evidence gained from such materials is usually described as paleontological.

Edited April 23Apr 23 by TheVat

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Fossiliferous describes the strata or rocks in which fossils are found. E.g. fossiliferous limestone.

The evidence gained from such materials is usually described as paleontological.

Simply identifying a rock as fossiliferous does not equate to paleontological evidence.

Both terms are correct

Lets agree to disagree

35 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Simply identifying a rock as fossiliferous does not equate to paleontological evidence.

That is true, and what TheVat said. You seem to agree with him and disagree with your previous quote that TheVat alluded to.

On 4/22/2025 at 10:03 AM, Sohan Lalwani said:

Morphologically and evolutionary speaking, there obviously is no denial with such a stupendous amount of fossiliferous and biological evidence.

In that quite you seem to be referring to paleontological evidence of evolution rather than the fact that some strata hold fossils (which by themselves would not be evidence of evolution).

Just now, CharonY said:

That is true, and what TheVat said. You seem to agree with him and disagree with your previous quote that TheVat alluded to.

In that quite you seem to be referring to paleontological evidence of evolution rather than the fact that some strata hold fossils (which by themselves would not be evidence of evolution).

Strata, or rock layers, provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the progressive change of life forms over geologic time. The relative order of fossils found in different strata, following the principle of superposition, demonstrates a consistent sequence of life, where older strata typically contain simpler organisms and younger strata contain more complex ones. This pattern suggests an evolutionary trajectory, with organisms evolving and diversifying over time. 

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is true, and what TheVat said. You seem to agree with him and disagree with your previous quote that TheVat alluded to.

In that quite you seem to be referring to paleontological evidence of evolution rather than the fact that some strata hold fossils (which by themselves would not be evidence of evolution).

Strata provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the gradual changes in life forms over geological time. The principle of superposition, which states that older rock layers lie beneath younger ones, allows scientists to observe a progression of fossils in different strata, with simpler organisms in older layers and more complex ones in younger layers. This sequence suggests a pattern of gradual evolution. Fossils found in these layers, including transitional forms, reveal intermediate stages between different species, further supporting the idea of evolution through gradual change. Additionally, the distribution of fossils across continents supports the theory of continental drift and adaptive radiation, while mass extinctions followed by new species filling ecological niches further demonstrate the dynamic nature of life’s evolution. Overall, the fossil record in strata provides a timeline of life’s evolutionary history, showing how species have adapted and evolved over millions of years.

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

This sequence suggests a pattern of gradual evolution

Uniformitarianism is not the only process observed.

That argument is old hat and held back scientific progress for a couple of centuries.

7 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Strata, or rock layers, provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the progressive change of life forms over geologic time. The relative order of fossils found in different strata, following the principle of superposition, demonstrates a consistent sequence of life, where older strata typically contain simpler organisms and younger strata contain more complex ones. This pattern suggests an evolutionary trajectory, with organisms evolving and diversifying over time. 

Strata provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the gradual changes in life forms over geological time. The principle of superposition, which states that older rock layers lie beneath younger ones, allows scientists to observe a progression of fossils in different strata, with simpler organisms in older layers and more complex ones in younger layers. This sequence suggests a pattern of gradual evolution. Fossils found in these layers, including transitional forms, reveal intermediate stages between different species, further supporting the idea of evolution through gradual change. Additionally, the distribution of fossils across continents supports the theory of continental drift and adaptive radiation, while mass extinctions followed by new species filling ecological niches further demonstrate the dynamic nature of life’s evolution. Overall, the fossil record in strata provides a timeline of life’s evolutionary history, showing how species have adapted and evolved over millions of years.

Your link on superposition goes to quantum theory, not geology, which is a bit unfortunate - perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make. 😉

I think in geology it is usually referred to as a "law" of superposition, as distinct from the "principle" of superposition which normally relates to the physics of waves - and thus to quantum mechanics.

Edited April 24Apr 24 by exchemist

Just now, exchemist said:

perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make.

With you there bro. +1

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

With you there bro. +1

Yeah it was "showcasing" that did it for me. Almost nobody says that, outside of corporate blurbs.😁

Just now, exchemist said:

Just now, exchemist said:

Yeah it was "showcasing" that did it for me. Almost nobody says that, outside of corporate blurbs.😁

Well I wonder what the mixture robot, AI , bots in general and humans bodes. for evolution.

BBC Newsround

World's first half-marathon with humans and robots takes...

While robots have made appearances at marathons in the past, this is the first time they have raced against humans over this distance.

Edited April 24Apr 24 by studiot

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I wonder what the mixture robot, AI , bots in general and humans bodes. for evolution.

BBC Newsround

World's first half-marathon with humans and robots takes...

While robots have made appearances at marathons in the past, this is the first time they have raced against humans over this distance.

I imagine it would make us lazier, happier to have things understood for us.

More somer and fewer savage's.😉

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Your link on superposition goes to quantum theory, not geology, which is a bit unfortunate - perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make. 😉

I think in geology it is usually referred to as a "law" of superposition, as distinct from the "principle" of superposition which normally relates to the physics of waves - and thus to quantum mechanics.

Perhaps you do not understand what I am talking about

The principle of superposition is essential in proving the validity of evolutionary theory because it provides the chronological framework needed to trace the development of life on Earth. According to this principle, older rock layers lie beneath younger ones, meaning that fossils found in deeper strata are older than those above them. This orderly layering is not random—it reveals a clear, consistent progression from simple to more complex organisms over time. Such a pattern strongly supports the idea that life has evolved gradually, rather than appearing all at once or remaining unchanged. Critics of evolution often demand observable, step-by-step evidence of change, and superposition delivers exactly that by preserving the fossilized remains of organisms in a natural timeline. Without this principle, there would be no reliable way to link fossil evidence to specific periods in Earth’s history, making superposition a cornerstone in the argument for evolution through deep time.

Perhaps my link was wrong, but my statement is right, your lack of understanding is something that perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make. 😉

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Your link on superposition goes to quantum theory, not geology, which is a bit unfortunate - perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make. 😉

I think in geology it is usually referred to as a "law" of superposition, as distinct from the "principle" of superposition which normally relates to the physics of waves - and thus to quantum mechanics.

The words "principle" and "law" in science can both refer to foundational ideas, but they're often used interchangeably, especially in geology.

You’ll see Principle of Original Horizontality and Law of Cross-Cutting Relationships — so there’s not a hard rule about using "law" vs. "principle."

4 hours ago, studiot said:

With you there bro. +1

I am a chatbot?

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Uniformitarianism is not the only process observed.

That argument is old hat and held back scientific progress for a couple of centuries.

Id love to know where I explicitly stated that

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Uniformitarianism is not the only process observed.

That argument is old hat and held back scientific progress for a couple of centuries.

I appreciate the engagement, but I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I never claimed that uniformitarianism is the only process observed. What I stated was that the sequence of fossils in strata suggests a pattern of gradual evolution — which is a statement about the overall trend visible in the fossil record, not an exclusive endorsement of one geological model.

Modern science recognizes that both gradual and catastrophic processes have shaped Earth's history. Evolutionary theory itself has evolved to incorporate that — including models like punctuated equilibrium, which account for both slow changes and sudden shifts. So pointing out a consistent fossil sequence across strata isn't denying catastrophism or claiming uniformitarianism is the only explanation — it's highlighting the clear temporal structure in the fossil record that aligns with evolutionary progression.

Accusing me of relying solely on outdated uniformitarian thinking misses the point and misrepresents what was actually said.

Perhaps next time, "read before you write." 😃

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yeah it was "showcasing" that did it for me. Almost nobody says that, outside of corporate blurbs.😁

Can you pinpoint where I said that? And also, word choice does not prove someone is a bot. 😃

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I wonder what the mixture robot, AI , bots in general and humans bodes. for evolution.

BBC Newsround

World's first half-marathon with humans and robots takes...

While robots have made appearances at marathons in the past, this is the first time they have raced against humans over this distance.

That's a programmed "robot," not a mixture of anything human, "perhaps the mistake a chatbot would make."

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Can you pinpoint where I said that?

Bolded here:

15 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Strata provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the gradual changes in life forms over geological time.

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Bolded here:

I see thank you.

I am still failing to understand how word choice makes me a bot.

3 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I am still failing to understand how word choice makes me a bot.

It doesn't, and speculation about it is off-topic for this thread. The subject is Evidence of Common Human Ancestry, which you seem to agree with, however there are issues with your terminology that have been brought up, outside the whole chatbot tangent. Perhaps addressing those might get the discussion back on track?

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Bolded here:

I see thank you.

I am still failing to understand how word choice makes me a bot.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It doesn't, and speculation about it is off-topic for this thread. The subject is Evidence of Common Human Ancestry, which you seem to agree with, however there are issues with your terminology that have been brought up, outside the whole chatbot tangent. Perhaps addressing those might get the discussion back on track?

I see, thank you for the feedback.

Edited April 24Apr 24 by Sohan Lalwani

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I am a chatbot?

Neither exchemist nor myself have said you are a chatbot.

Read what was actually said more carefully.

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Accusing me of relying solely on outdated uniformitarian thinking misses the point and misrepresents what was actually said.

Perhaps next time, "read before you write." 😃

Really ?

16 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Strata, or rock layers, provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the progressive change of life forms over geologic time. The relative order of fossils found in different strata, following the principle of superposition, demonstrates a consistent sequence of life, where older strata typically contain simpler organisms and younger strata contain more complex ones. This pattern suggests an evolutionary trajectory, with organisms evolving and diversifying over time. 

This is an oversimplified version of the Law of Superposition, as stated in the science of Stratigraphy ( which is a part of Geology )

What a pity you did not check out your link before you posted it.

A good place to start would be with a proper geology textbook such as chapter XIV of

Lake and Ralstall's

A Textbook of Geology

It is only a short chapter but clearly explains why the above quote passage is seriously in error ; when and why the doctrine of 'younger overlays older' holds and stresses the equally important when it does not.
It goes into proper detail about how to use the fossil record and how not to misuse it.

15 hours ago, studiot said:

Neither exchemist nor myself have said you are a chatbot.

Read what was actually said more carefully.

Really ?

This is an oversimplified version of the Law of Superposition, as stated in the science of Stratigraphy ( which is a part of Geology )

What a pity you did not check out your link before you posted it.

A good place to start would be with a proper geology textbook such as chapter XIV of

Lake and Ralstall's

A Textbook of Geology

It is only a short chapter but clearly explains why the above quote passage is seriously in error ; when and why the doctrine of 'younger overlays older' holds and stresses the equally important when it does not.
It goes into proper detail about how to use the fossil record and how not to misuse it.

I’ve re-read the exchange carefully, and while no one explicitly typed “You are a chatbot,” the statement “perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make 😉” isn’t neutral. It clearly implies that my response was lacking in human-level nuance or context awareness—traits often associated with bots. Whether meant as a joke or not, it directly questions the credibility of my post by attributing it to a non-human source.

Also, pointing out that something is an “oversimplified version” doesn’t automatically mean it’s incorrect. General explanations often precede more technical ones, especially in discussions intended for a broad audience. That’s how scientific communication works. I’m happy to expand with the relevant caveats and geological complexities—such as overturned strata, faults, or unconformities—but calling the explanation “seriously in error” feels disproportionate.

Finally, I'm not arguing that uniformitarianism is the only geological model. I never said that. My point was that the fossil record, as observed in undisturbed strata, shows a clear chronological sequence of life evolving over time. That’s consistent with what evolutionary theory predicts, and it remains a valid point, even if the initial phrasing was concise.

So yes, really.

What a "pity" we could not stick to basic scientific fact instead of snarking that someone with an opposing viewpoint is a chatbot.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Neither exchemist nor myself have said you are a chatbot.

Read what was actually said more carefully.

Really ?

This is an oversimplified version of the Law of Superposition, as stated in the science of Stratigraphy ( which is a part of Geology )

What a pity you did not check out your link before you posted it.

A good place to start would be with a proper geology textbook such as chapter XIV of

Lake and Ralstall's

A Textbook of Geology

It is only a short chapter but clearly explains why the above quote passage is seriously in error ; when and why the doctrine of 'younger overlays older' holds and stresses the equally important when it does not.
It goes into proper detail about how to use the fossil record and how not to misuse it.

My post never claimed that the Law (or Principle) of Superposition applies universally in all geological contexts without exception. I specifically referred to how undisturbed strata support the fossil record’s chronological sequence, which is a foundational and uncontroversial point in both geology and paleontology. Yes, geological processes such as folding, faulting, and overturning can complicate layer orientation—but those exceptions are well understood, identifiable, and routinely accounted for in fieldwork and analysis. The existence of exceptions doesn’t invalidate the general principle; it highlights the importance of careful geological interpretation.

Your claim that my post was “seriously in error” seems based on an assumption that I denied those complexities, when in fact I was making a generalized statement suitable for discussing evolutionary patterns—not stratigraphic anomalies. In science communication, generalizations are often necessary for clarity and accessibility, provided they don’t misrepresent the facts. I made no absolute claims and would gladly have expanded on the geological nuances if that were the focus.

So while I appreciate the recommendation of Lake and Ralstall’s textbook, I’d encourage a more charitable reading of my original post. Describing superposition as a framework for evolutionary chronology is not an error—it’s exactly how it’s used by geologists and evolutionary biologists alike. Mischaracterizing that explanation as a denial of stratigraphic complexity does a disservice to the discussion.

On 4/24/2025 at 1:43 AM, exchemist said:

Your link on superposition goes to quantum theory, not geology, which is a bit unfortunate - perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make. 😉

I think in geology it is usually referred to as a "law" of superposition, as distinct from the "principle" of superposition which normally relates to the physics of waves - and thus to quantum mechanics.

For the terminology: in geology, both “principle” and “law” of superposition are used interchangeably across textbooks and academic literature. For example, Nicholas & Paleobiology (1999) refer to it as the “principle,” while Reed & Bush (2007) call it the “law.” There's no strict rule dividing usage by discipline—it’s more about regional and pedagogical preferences.

Edited April 25Apr 25 by Sohan Lalwani

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I’ve re-read the exchange carefully, and while no one explicitly typed “You are a chatbot,” the statement “perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make 😉” isn’t neutral. It clearly implies that my response was lacking in human-level nuance or context awareness—traits often associated with bots. Whether meant as a joke or not, it directly questions the credibility of my post by attributing it to a non-human source.

Also, pointing out that something is an “oversimplified version” doesn’t automatically mean it’s incorrect. General explanations often precede more technical ones, especially in discussions intended for a broad audience. That’s how scientific communication works. I’m happy to expand with the relevant caveats and geological complexities—such as overturned strata, faults, or unconformities—but calling the explanation “seriously in error” feels disproportionate.

Finally, I'm not arguing that uniformitarianism is the only geological model. I never said that. My point was that the fossil record, as observed in undisturbed strata, shows a clear chronological sequence of life evolving over time. That’s consistent with what evolutionary theory predicts, and it remains a valid point, even if the initial phrasing was concise.

So yes, really.

What a "pity" we could not stick to basic scientific fact instead of snarking that someone with an opposing viewpoint is a chatbot.

My post never claimed that the Law (or Principle) of Superposition applies universally in all geological contexts without exception. I specifically referred to how undisturbed strata support the fossil record’s chronological sequence, which is a foundational and uncontroversial point in both geology and paleontology. Yes, geological processes such as folding, faulting, and overturning can complicate layer orientation—but those exceptions are well understood, identifiable, and routinely accounted for in fieldwork and analysis. The existence of exceptions doesn’t invalidate the general principle; it highlights the importance of careful geological interpretation.

Your claim that my post was “seriously in error” seems based on an assumption that I denied those complexities, when in fact I was making a generalized statement suitable for discussing evolutionary patterns—not stratigraphic anomalies. In science communication, generalizations are often necessary for clarity and accessibility, provided they don’t misrepresent the facts. I made no absolute claims and would gladly have expanded on the geological nuances if that were the focus.

So while I appreciate the recommendation of Lake and Ralstall’s textbook, I’d encourage a more charitable reading of my original post. Describing superposition as a framework for evolutionary chronology is not an error—it’s exactly how it’s used by geologists and evolutionary biologists alike. Mischaracterizing that explanation as a denial of stratigraphic complexity does a disservice to the discussion.

For the terminology: in geology, both “principle” and “law” of superposition are used interchangeably across textbooks and academic literature. For example, Nicholas & Paleobiology (1999) refer to it as the “principle,” while Reed & Bush (2007) call it the “law.” There's no strict rule dividing usage by discipline—it’s more about regional and pedagogical preferences.

I'm still curious as to how your earlier post came to include a web link, for superposition, to entirely the wrong subject, viz. quantum theory. It seems an odd mistake for a human poster to make. But as moderation has reminded us that speculation about your use of AI or otherwise is not the subject of the thread, I won't pursue it further.

Of course I entirely agree - as would anybody with basic knowledge of science - with the general point you make, about younger strata generally overlying older and the evolutionary progression of fossils that can be traced in the geological column. If you look back in the thread, what is striking is the feebleness of the challenges from creationists. They almost all rely on carefully cultivated ignorance. No doubt that is fine when they talk among themselves, at chapel or bible study class, but what beats me is why they choose to come to a science forum and try the same arguments on people who know some science. It seems extraordinarily naïve.

Edited April 25Apr 25 by exchemist

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

I'm still curious as to how your earlier post came to include a web link, for superposition, to entirely the wrong subject, viz. quantum theory. It seems an odd mistake for a human poster to make. But as moderation has reminded us that speculation about your use of AI or otherwise is not the subject of the thread, I won't pursue it further.

Of course I entirely agree - as would anybody with basic knowledge of science - with the general point you make, about younger strata generally overlying older and the evolutionary progression of fossils that can be traced in the geological column. If you look back in the thread, what is striking is the feebleness of the challenges from creationists. They almost all rely on carefully cultivated ignorance. No doubt that is fine when they talk among themselves, at chapel or bible study class, but what beats me is why they choose to come to a science forum and try the same arguments on people who know some science. It seems extraordinarily naïve.

I often see a lot of creationists on other platforms as well. I 100% agree, why not stay within your own religious community than attempt to combat a theory that's supported by a plethora of evidence.

20 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I’ve re-read the exchange carefully, and while no one explicitly typed “You are a chatbot,” the statement “perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make 😉” isn’t neutral. It clearly implies that my response was lacking in human-level nuance or context awareness—traits often associated with bots. Whether meant as a joke or not, it directly questions the credibility of my post by attributing it to a non-human source.

It was an observation, based on the number of folk's that try to use one to bolster their argument, for some reason... 😎

20 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Also, pointing out that something is an “oversimplified version” doesn’t automatically mean it’s incorrect.

Yes it does, unless it's axiomatic... 😉

On 4/26/2025 at 5:02 AM, dimreepr said:

It was an observation, based on the number of folk's that try to use one to bolster their argument, for some reason... 😎

Yes it does, unless it's axiomatic... 😉

Let me repeat this to you, just because something is general, DOES NOT MAKE IT INCORRECT.

On 4/26/2025 at 5:02 AM, dimreepr said:

It was an observation, based on the number of folk's that try to use one to bolster their argument, for some reason... 😎

Yes it does, unless it's axiomatic... 😉

Let me repeat this to you, just because something is general, DOES NOT MAKE IT INCORRECT.

On 4/26/2025 at 5:02 AM, dimreepr said:

It was an observation, based on the number of folk's that try to use one to bolster their argument, for some reason... 😎

Yes it does, unless it's axiomatic... 😉

First off I didn't use AI, and even if someone did it does not invalidate their argument.

On 4/26/2025 at 8:02 AM, dimreepr said:

It was an observation, based on the number of folk's that try to use one to bolster their argument, for some reason... 😎

And one that’s really unnecessary to point out since it’s OT, and something the mods wish people would stop doing.

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

First off I didn't use AI, and even if someone did it does not invalidate their argument.

That’s a discussion for another thread.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

And one that’s really unnecessary to point out since it’s OT, and something the mods wish people would stop doing.

Apologies, in this context...

17 hours ago, swansont said:

And one that’s really unnecessary to point out since it’s OT, and something the mods wish people would stop doing.

That’s a discussion for another thread.

Ok 👍

On 4/25/2025 at 4:06 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

I’ve re-read the exchange carefully, and while no one explicitly typed “You are a chatbot

Thank you, but then you reverse this by saying

On 4/25/2025 at 4:06 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

instead of snarking that someone with an opposing viewpoint is a chatbot.

So yes it is a pity and will remain so until you preaching as though you are the sole authority on the subject and can accept that others may have valid thoughts to add.

On 4/25/2025 at 4:06 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

What a "pity" we could not stick to basic scientific fact instead of snarking that someone with an opposing viewpoint is a chatbot.

In point of fact this thread has been going for over 20 years and many folks have made their comments. The original post did not refer to fossils at all, just modern biochemical evidence like DNA and more.

So I don't know why stratigraphy has been introduced at all.

On 4/22/2025 at 5:03 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

Morphologically and evolutionary speaking, there obviously is no denial with such a stupendous amount of fossiliferous and biological evidence.

Yes I would agree that the biochemical evidence we can now examine and tailor our evolutionary hypotheses to suit, as it does not suffer the problems associated with some other methods.

BUT

The so called 'fossil record' is a whole different matter.

It has long been known that by its very nature the fossil record is woefully incomplete.

It has long been known that strata vary in thickness (and to some extent composition) with location, ans sometimes are altogether absent.

What do you think are the implications of this for fossils and the fossil record ?

A very serious question to consider is How are fossils formed?

So yes the fossil record can tell us a lot but we have to be very wary as there are often several possible reasons for the absence or presence of certain fossils.

Finally for the purposes of this thread we are talking about a common human anscestor, not the record over hundreds or thousands of millions of years.