If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[Robert the Pilegrim]

We have yet to see the changes in generations produce a novelty that was not present in the species in the past or prencoded in the dna of the species.

Nylon digesting bacteria

Despite the billions of mutations in man over the observed millenia

Millenia(sp?) = 1000s of years.

We have acquired fewer than a billion mutations since we split with chimps 5 million years ago.

we have yet to see any new thing in man like a wing or gills or fur or feathers.

I'd say that upright plantigrade walking (to say nothing about art and rampant tool use) are on the order of wings and feathers.

 

[Gukkor]

Simply put, our spiritual relationship with God grows and evolves, correct? We start out with God feeding us spiritual "milk," and gradually progress toward deeper matters, the "meat." If the spirit's awareness of God's presence and purpose can evolve over time, why can't flesh likewise evolve in unison?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

What we DO see are new phyla occurring at various times. And we have seen transitional between phyla as well. Talk.origin has an easily accessible example of a transition in trilobites, f.ex. And we certainly see fossils with changes in transitions between species, consistent with environmental clues aligned with the fossils.

No what we have seen was the "cambrian explosion" with its vast diversity of life and simple changes within the species-kept within the species. But no change on the order needed to take a fish-turn it to a reptile and turn it to a bird--that is the crux of the theory of evolution.

?eh?
The Cambrian explosion was ~700 million years ago,
the fish-amphibian transition was during the Devonian, ~400 million years ago,
the amphibian-reptile transition was during the Carboniferous ~300 million years ago
the reptile-bird transition probably started ~250 million years ago.

(n.b. "~" = "roughly")

Archeoptryx is not a transition-- in order for something to be transitonal we need to see it link to predecessors and to future species--archy doesn't count.

So, how fine of a link do you want to remain intact over 250,000,000 years?

Archeopteryx bears both bird and reptile traits. It is either a transitional or very close to one.

Here is Don Lindsay's collection of transitionals.
Hopefully a copy of one of the gifs is attached to the bottom of this post

 

[steen]

No that is what evolutionists say is what produces evolution.

As the scientists doing research into Evolution are the ones who defined their field of research, I would say this makes their definition valid.

Every generation has changes in their alleles from their parents--otherwise we would be genetic identicals and we are not.

I am pleased that you admit the fact of Evolution’s existence. Case closed.

Cambridge dictionary---

Uhum. Perhaps next time you should get the Science definitions form a Science dictionary instead. If your knowledge of Evolution comes from the Cambridge dictionary, then you have problems from the get-go in any discussion about Evolution.

We have yet to see the changes in generations produce a novelty that was not present in the species in the past or prencoded in the dna of the species.

A flat-out false claim. The best documented example is that of the nylon-digesting bacteria, which loves off a compound that was nowhere to be found ANYWHERE on the Earth 100 years ago.

Despite the billions of mutations in man over the observed millennia

That many? Care to document your claim? I am getting the impression that you really don’t know what you are talking about.

we have yet to see any new thing in man like a wing or gills or fur or feathers.

Why would we see this? What ecological competitive advantage would that give us in our niche? What part of the Scientific Research into Evolution has ever predicted that we would see such a change in humans? You REALLY need to document this, as it on the surface looks like an utterly ignorant claim about human Evolution. But in case I missed research on this, by all means provide the Scientific Reference.

The theory of evolution has said this kind of change has occurred and yet has not proven it at all.

Really? Humans had gills according to the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Please document that bizarre claim.

Peer reviewed journals are not evolution!!

Correct. They are cellulose, ink and glue on a shelf (Or now also to some extend electronically stored text. So?

they are just ine evolutionist presenting his ideas to another evolutionist,

They are the method by which scientific research and discoveries are communicated, yes.

they may debate points but the fundamental BELIEF (not fact) of evolution is questioned.

This makes no sense. Can you explain and clarify, please.

between species?? So transitions in say cannes

weithin cannes??

”cannes”? What do you mean?

Ort are you saying we have empirical evidence of dinos becoming birds! I would like to see that!!! Talk origin just does a lot of talking but offers no real evidence--just speculation based on their agenda!!

Actually, talk.origin does a nice work at documenting this. First off, there is a general overview here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird

Likewise, this link has a complete transitional species chain that goes directly from repriles to birds:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
.. Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba,..

In case you want to double-check, the scientific references are as follows:
Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. 306-323
Norell, M. A., and Clarke, J. A. (2001) "Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution." Nature 409: 181-184.
Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147.
Xu, X., Tang, Z-T., Wang, X-l. (1999) "A therizinosauroid dinosaur with integumentary structures from China." Nature 399: 350-354.
Xu, X., Zhou, Z., and Wang ,X. (2000) "The smallest known non-avian theropod dinosaur." Nature 408: 705-708
Xu, X., Norell, M. A., Wang, X-l., Makovicky, P. J., and Wu, X.C. (2002) "A basal troodontid from the Early Cretaceous of China." Nature 415: 780-784

Now if you want to just check abstracts and further reference info, pubmed has most of these indexed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=whsiclib

So your claim regarding talk.origin also is turning out to be flat-out false. Could you please take at least a minimum of care to ensure that your claims are not false? It is rather annoying to have to waste time correcting errors and false claims rather than actually discussing the issues.

Archeoptryx is not a transition—

It has neighbor species with more reptilian traits and neighbors with more avian traits. So it certainly is in the pool of species that shows traits of both. That makes it transitional. Why the need for misrepresentation? Don’t you have a case based on the facts?

inorder for something to be transitonal we need to see it link to predecessors and to future species—

Indeed.
Here is the species just a little bit earlier in the Evolutionary chain, Microraptor:
http://www.skewsme.com/microraptor.html

And the following species, Rahonavis:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/theropod_ancestry_of_birds.htm#B1
(outline picture 2 screens down.)

archy doesn't count.

Because it fits well, has it all mapped out and has solid evidence and thus destroys your argument?

So don't many other supopossed transitions for they link with nothing or are so equivicable as to be ludicrous.

Ah, a “just because I say so” unsubstantiated postulation contrary to evidence. Yeah, whatever.

No what we have seen was the "cambrian explosion" with its vast diversity of life and simple changes within the species-kept within the species.

Huh? That certainly is NOT what we saw when the Cambrian time began.

But no change on the order needed to take a fish-turn it to a rep[tile and turn it to a bird--that is the crux of the theory of evolution.

Huh? No it isn’t. The crux of the Scientific Theory of Evolution is that the genetic expression in a population changes from generation to generation. You still seem not even aware what Evolution is, despite apparently believing that you are able to provide meaningful critique of it????

Well why don't you google evolutionists who offer alternative ideas to the accepted view that things like the supposed "protfeaqthers" on some raptors found in China could just simply be juvenile raptors with downy fur just like newborn dolphins have hair n their bodies for a time.

huh? Why don’t you merely provide the evidence you claim for your postulation? It is not my job to find evidence for your claims. I just conclude that you don’t have any evidence at all.

Well how can I? If I show alternative theories for the supposed transitional fossils evolutionists say ar ethe smoking guns that "prove" evolution-- I will be simply dismissed because without any degree in biology I am going against the supposed "experts".

Nope. It has nothing to do with your education. It has to do with the data you provide. If it is valid, scientific data, then it is accepted. If not, then you are told to go back and find actual evidence instead.

Your attempt at getting out of providing proof for your claims is rather bizarre, again indicating a near-total lack of knowledge of even basic science.

Which by the way how does one prove that paleobiologists, and biologists go about becoming experts when they cannot conclusively prove theire suppositions on what the supposed transitionals really are??

Ah, good question, isn’t it? If you want to prove the expert wrong, then you need to provide evidence that contradicts the expert. That means that you really have to know what you are talking about ANMD that you must have the actual evidence.

But disproving an expert merely because you don’t like what he/she is saying and providing evidence for? Well, tough luck. Science doesn’t work on wishful thinking, it works on evidence and data. If you want to show somebody wrong, then show the data. The “I don’t like the implication because it goes against my faith” is NOT valid, Scientific Evidence. It never rises above “just because I WANT this to be true” postulations.

Even Sirt Colin PAtterson who was an avid evolutionist himself said that evolution is a few pieces of information thrown into a carefully woven story!

So you say. And the evidence for (1) that he actually said this and is not quote-mined by creationists, (2) that he actually was an “avid evolutionist”, (3) was a scientists who knew and know what he is talking about, and (4) actually had any evidence for that claim, what evidence is that? I can’t wait for you to show us.

Well I Am glad you do! I too understand the scientific method of proving theories,

But you have shown such a shocking lack of comprehension of the Scientific Method and of what Scientific Evidence is that it is VERY hard to accept your claim at face value. Your claim here directly contradicts the knowledge of even basic science that you have shown up above in the tread. Can you explain the discrepancy, please?

I have (from the continous redefining of evolution)

Uhum. Perhaps you should go with the ACTUAL definition of the Scientific ?

only a marginal understanding of the most modern concepts of evolution (I had a good one but that was form the 70's and 80's and those definitions are passe')

Really? The Scientific theory of Evolution is relatively stable, after all. Some of the details in the Scientific Research changes with new evidence, but the actual Scientific Theory is unchanged.

 

[nolidad]

Simply put, our spiritual relationship with God grows and evolves, correct? We start out with God feeding us spiritual "milk," and gradually progress toward deeper matters, the "meat." If the spirit's awareness of God's presence and purpose can evolve over time, why can't flesh likewise evolve in unison?

No it doesn't evolve, it grows and matures just like a child does in the physical, unless of course you say that a newborn that becomes an adult is evolution and not just simply growth.

Robert the Pilgrim writes:

The Cambrian explosion was ~700 million years ago,
the fish-amphibian transition was during the Devonian, ~400 million years ago,
the amphibian-reptile transition was during the Carboniferous ~300 million years ago
the reptile-bird transition probably started ~250 million years ago.

Well we YEC folk are still waiting for trhe transitions that prove these massive physiological changes. You would think that after 450 million years according to the evolutionists of transitioning from goo to the zoo- we would find enormous fossils both of the transitions and the mistakes that died out!! In 450 million years we probably had conservatively 350-400 trillion creatures born and die.

Archeopteryx bears both bird and reptile traits. It is either a transitional or very close to one.

So where are the transitons to get to archeoptryx? Remember from reptile to bird over millions of years requires massive mutations that fail and survive and many many enviormental changes to keep the mutations going in the progressive line. Much more on this later.

Nylon digesting bacteria

It is still the same bacteria with a new food system! Show a change that creates a new genra form an old genra. Species renaming is done sometimes for simple things like a change in diet, different color patterns, and even different songs in the same bird!!!

We have acquired fewer than a billion mutations since we split with chimps 5 million years ago.

Okay I will bite--link me to a site that proves this! Mankiond in observed recent histopry has endured tens of billions of mutations (if changfe in junk Dna still counts as evolutionists say they are valid mutations), just in our lifetime! So come on you need to do better than that!

I'd say that upright plantigrade walking (to say nothing about art and rampant tool use) are on the order of wings and feathers.

Well show me the evolution of art from non art and show the full upright hominids progressing back to the knuckle walkers. lso if you can link to sites that show the skeltons that empirically verify trhe simian to hominid walking change.

More later I Am off to church

 

[Gukkor]

No it doesn't evolve, it grows and matures just like a child does in the physical, unless of course you say that a newborn that becomes an adult is evolution and not just simply growth.

Evolution - development; a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"

So yeah, I guess children do evolve in a sense.

 

[Mallon]

Well we YEC folk are still waiting for trhe transitions that prove these massive physiological changes. You would think that after 450 million years according to the evolutionists of transitioning from goo to the zoo- we would find enormous fossils both of the transitions and the mistakes that died out!!

And we do. Your denying it doesn't dictate otherwise.

In 450 million years we probably had conservatively 350-400 trillion creatures born and die.

And probably about 1% of those died in an environment which would be conducive to fossilization.
And about 1% of that would fossilize.
And about 1% of that would be exposed at the Earth's surface for us to find.
And we've found about 1% of those so far.
In truth, we'll be lucky if we ever find a hundredth of a percent of life's vast diversity on Earth. There have been all kinds of taphonomic studies to back this up.

So where are the transitons to get to archeoptryx?

So now it's not enough that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional taxon, but we have to have all the transitionals immediately before and after it, too. That's a tall order to ask, given the incompleteness of the fossil record I just outlined for you above. That said, steen's post above is a decent walkthrough the theropod-bird transition as we know it. Aggie made an even more detailed post on the subject months ago on the CvE forum. You should check it out and refute it here before you say anything else.

It is still the same bacteria with a new food system! Show a change that creates a new genra form an old genra.

The word you're looking for is "genus." "Genera" is the plural of genus. But before I provide you with an example, can you please define what a genus is? I think you will find it highly subjective, and virtually useless in trying to substantiate the process (or lack thereof) of evolution.

Species renaming is done sometimes for simple things like a change in diet, different color patterns, and even different songs in the same bird!!!

You act as though a change in diet is some small feat. In fact, it requires a bacterium to completely reorganize its physiology! That's nothing to turn your nose up at.

Well show me the evolution of art from non art

Determining what is art and what isn't is even more subjective than defining a genus! Here's a progression for you, though:

Please don't ask me for all the transitionals.

and show the full upright hominids progressing back to the knuckle walkers.

This is a strawman argument. No one has ever claimed this has happened.

lso if you can link to sites that show the skeltons that empirically verify trhe simian to hominid walking change.

I took time to find these. I only hope you will now read them:
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/Readings/r5.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/chp15.htm
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/figsonly/206/9/1437
http://www.neurokinesiology.org/Paleontology/
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00299.x?cookieSet=1

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

It is still the same bacteria with a new food system! []Species renaming is done sometimes for simple things like a change in diet,

<snort>
I'll tell you what, you go for a week eating grass and leaves (not grass seeds) and get back to me.

I'll respond to the rest next week.

 

[nolidad]

Sory for being absent for so long! vacations, illness, surgery has really taken a bite out of my comp time.

Mallon writes:

And we do. Your denying it doesn't dictate otherwise.

And evolutionists declaring some fossills transitional do not make them so either! Just recently they showed off a fossil found in canada which they declared is a transition from fish to reptile or amphibian. Tail piece missing but from all the pics I found it sure does look like a fossil seal with some differingf charascteristics. so much for the trransition.

As for the raptors with feathers?? What prof do they offer thatr these are not just extinct birds like ostriches, or penguins ro emus or kiwis?? Non flight birds that are true birds???? And even the "feathers" are in debate amongst evolutionists themselves! Truth is all we know is that it is an extinct animal that may have had barbs, hair . downy tufts (thus being a juvenile reptile that had hair for a period liek a dolphinm does ). It is only an pre existing bias to evolution that says these are transitional.

And probably about 1% of those died in an environment which would be conducive to fossilization.

Yeah like a global flood which would bring about rapid death, quick burial in a silicate rich slurry mixture and then just less than a century to fossilize as Mt. St. Helens has shown.

So now it's not enough that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional taxon, but we have to have all the transitionals immediately before and after it, too. That's a tall order to ask, given the incompleteness of the fossil record I just outlined for you above. That said, steen's post above is a decent walkthrough the theropod-bird transition as we know it. Aggie made an even more detailed post on the subject months ago on the CvE forum. You should check it out and refute it here before you say anything else.

Well with the fossil record so incomplete and archy just being there fully formed and no intermediates between archy and reptiles what empirical evidence gives you the confidence to say archy is a transition?? Where are the annimals going from solid to hollow bone? Where are the animals going from mouth to beak? Legs to talons? forelimbs to wings? cold blood to warm blood? Quadraped to biped? et al? These are allt he things as well as m any other needed morphic changes in order for a reptile or dino to become a bird. And we are just talking on e line that dead ends at archy!

The word you're looking for is "genus." "Genera" is the plural of genus. But before I provide you with an example, can you please define what a genus is? I think you will find it highly subjective, and virtually useless in trying to substantiate the process (or lack thereof) of evolution.

Group of related species. C'mon you are supposed to be more adept at science than me. Evo's stilluse the word so please let us not wate time with this silly word game.

You act as though a change in diet is some small feat. In fact, it requires a bacterium to completely reorganize its physiology! That's nothing to turn your nose up at.

I never said it was a tiny insignifcant feat. But this kinid of change seems to be isolated to bacterium and it does not make them nonbacteria and evolving to something else! We have had bacteria since the creatrion and they have (from what all evidence "suggests") been the most adaptable creature to enviormental and dietary changes without going extinct. So it hasn't evolved out of being baterium, they just have a unique defense mechanism to protect it in changing enviorons.

 

[notto]

Yeah like a global flood which would bring about rapid death, quick burial in a silicate rich slurry mixture and then just less than a century to fossilize as Mt. St. Helens has shown.

Any references to this? I'm very curious to see the silica replacement fossilization of animals caused by Mount Saint Helens.

 

[Mallon]

Sory for being absent for so long! vacations, illness, surgery has really taken a bite out of my comp time.

God bless and speedy recovery to you.

And evolutionists declaring some fossills transitional do not make them so either!

Agreed. But here's the difference: evolutionary scientists back up their claims with evidence. You don't have to take their word for it -- you can check them out for yourself by looking in the scientific journals in which they publish.

Just recently they showed off a fossil found in canada which they declared is a transition from fish to reptile or amphibian. Tail piece missing but from all the pics I found it sure does look like a fossil seal with some differingf charascteristics. so much for the trransition.

Did you read the original description in Nature of the creature you're referring to (Tiktaalik)? I bet you didn't! In it, the authors clearly outline the similarities and differences that make Tiktaalik a transitional fossil.

As for the raptors with feathers?? What prof do they offer thatr these are not just extinct birds like ostriches, or penguins ro emus or kiwis??

Well, for starters, the fact that "raptors" have manual claws, tails, and teeth!

Truth is all we know is that it is an extinct animal that may have had barbs, hair . downy tufts (thus being a juvenile reptile that had hair for a period liek a dolphinm does ). It is only an pre existing bias to evolution that says these are transitional.

So you admit that there are animals preserved in the fossil record exhibiting combinations of dinosaurian teeth and tails, and avian feathers, but you're unwilling to admit that they are transitional between birds and reptiles? I really question who is more biased.

Yeah like a global flood which would bring about rapid death, quick burial in a silicate rich slurry mixture and then just less than a century to fossilize as Mt. St. Helens has shown.

1. The Flood cannot be used to explain the fossil record. It cannot explain the deposition of things like trace fossils, salt deposits, and sequenced forest layers.
2. Do you have a source in support of your comment that the St. Helens eruption preserved fossils?

Where are the annimals going from solid to hollow bone?

Coelophysis is a basal theropod dinosaur and has hollow bones (nearly all theropods do). The very name Coelophysis means "hollow form."

Where are the animals going from mouth to beak?

We see beaks evolve many times within the Theropoda. Take ornithomimosaurs, for example. Or oviraptorosaurs/segnosaurs. Googling "beak evolution" will provide you with many sources for further reading, if you're interested.

Legs to talons?

Legs to talons? Birds with talons still have legs...

forelimbs to wings?

The theropod-bird wing transition is well documented, too. If you're interested in just looking at a single dinosaur, check out basal maniraptoran theropod like, say, Saurornithoides or Unenlagia or Sinornithosaurus.

cold blood to warm blood?

There have been many isotopic studies demonstrating that dinosaurs were likely intermediate in their metabolism. For example, see:

Reid, R. 1997. Dinosaurian Physiology: The Case for "Intermediate" Dinosaurs. In The Complete Dinosaur, Eds. Brett-Surman, M. and Farlow, J. pp. 449 - 473.

Quadraped to biped?

Bipedal birds evolved from bipedal dinosaurs. The transition from quadrupedalism to bipedalism happened somewhere nearer the archosaurian stem. Check out Euparkeria.

These are allt he things as well as m any other needed morphic changes in order for a reptile or dino to become a bird.

And as I've just demonstrated, they are all documented. I sincerely hope you will take the time to honestly examine the evidence for youself.

Group of related species. C'mon you are supposed to be more adept at science than me.

Oh, I am.
Your answer doesn't help me to tell whether a dog and a coyote belong in the same genus, however. You need to be specific. Saying a genus is a "group of related species", while correct, is not a useful definition. As I pointed out earlier, it is entirely subjective and scientifically meaningless (scientists only continue to use generic names to keep things ordlerly).

Evo's stilluse the word so please let us not wate time with this silly word game.

It's not silly. It's at the root of what confuses so many creationists. It is exceedingly difficult to objectively define anything beyond the species level because of the amount of morphological overlap exhibited in the fossil record.

 

[nolidad]

Mallon writes:

First thanks for trh ewell wishes, but it was my wqif ethat had surgery. I shall be having heart surgery in Sept.

Agreed. But here's the difference: evolutionary scientists back up their claims with evidence. You don't have to take their word for it -- you can check them out for yourself by looking in the scientific journals in which they publish.

I have and do and once again it is their opinions they present as evidence. We have no extant transitionals they are all fosills and fosills do not yield the kind of info they publish. There is so little Dna and even when we do have DNA like in the fleshy parts of the T rex found- we have not mapped it out yet to make the detrminations. They make their assumptions based almoist solely on morphology and a belief in evolution. I base my opinions on morphology and a beleif in creation and the proven laws oif science. Science has yet to show lizard to bird--they offer a few fosills with some possibilities (for their are other explanations as well) and make conclusions because they hold evolution true.

We have no recorded examples of what is known as "macro evolution" anywhere. Even many micro evolutrionary changes observed can be explained other than ranom mutation and still they are horizontal andnot vertrical changes. They just simply make the species another kind of the same animal.

 

[steen]

I have and do and once again it is their opinions they present as evidence. We have no extant transitionals they are all fosills and fosills do not yield the kind of info they publish.

We certainly see the transitional species in ring species.

We have no recorded examples of what is known as "macro evolution" anywhere.

If you mean it like biologists do, then yes we do. The fore-mentioned ring-species would be one such example.

Even many micro evolutrionary changes observed can be explained other than ranom mutation

Well, there is Natural Selection.

and still they are horizontal andnot vertrical changes. They just simply make the species another kind of the same animal.

We have documented examples of the observed formation of new species. Your claim is false.

 

[Mallon]

I have and do and once again it is their opinions they present as evidence.

I fail to see how this point is rooted in anything more than your own personal opinion. Science is not supported by personal opinion; it is supported by evidence. Any good scientific paper will have a results section in which the evidence is presented, and a discussion section in which the results are interpreted. It is here in the latter section that the scientists may present their opinions, but it is always in relation to the evidence presented in the results.

We have no extant transitionals

How would you know whether something is a transitional if you haven't seen yet seen the "end point"?

There is so little Dna and even when we do have DNA like in the fleshy parts of the T rex found- we have not mapped it out yet to make the detrminations.

We can determine relationships based on more than DNA evidence. That's what traditional comparative anatomy is all about. Morphological similarities; not genetic.

We have no recorded examples of what is known as "macro evolution" anywhere.

Macroevolution is change above the species level. That is how it is defined. Since you yourself will admit that we have seen new species evolve (e.g. from the common "dog ancestor"), then you have to admit that we have seen macroevolution in action.