Gorilla Genome

[Loudmouth]

No, that's not how it goes. Genetic or phenotypic traits may simply be more or less conserved in different lineages, thus masking a signal of steady divergence.

If more distant groups have an unexpected amount of similarity, then the evolutionists can simply assume that those traits were highly conserved (maintained by natural selection) and the opposite scenario goes for differences between groups thought to be more closely related.

The concept of a "molecular clock" keeping careful track of lineage divergence times throughout evolutionary history has always been fraught with contradictions. If you studied the literature you would understand this.

Why do we find fossil transitionals between fish and amphibians, but not birds and amphibians?

Why do we find fossil transitionals between dinosaurs and birds, but not mammals and birds?

How do you explain this, other than through evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

They claimed that the ancestor to tetrapods would be found. The direct link between the lobed-fined fish and tetrapods.

A direct link is not necessarily a direct ancestor. Those are two different things.

Also, can you show us where they said that they expected to find a direct ancestor in the lineage of modern tetrapods? How would they even determine that?

From my reading, they were looking for transitional features between Panderichthys and Acanthostega/Ichthyostega. That was exactly what they found in Tiktaalik. In fact, they even show all of the fossils as being side groups:

I didn't claim that evolution isn't true, I'm saying that evolution didn't predict correctly what would be found and finding Tetrapods 20 million years earlier than the Taktaalik shows that it only provides explanation ad hoc more times than not.

They found a fossil with transitional features between lobe finned fish and later tetrapods. That is exactly what they were looking for.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A direct link is not necessarily a direct ancestor. Those are two different things.

They claimed it was a direct ancestor to the Tetrapod.

Also, can you show us where they said that they expected to find a direct ancestor in the lineage of modern tetrapods? How would they even determine that?

I gave a quote from Jenny Clack that explained what they expected.

From my reading, they were looking for transitional features between Panderichthys and Acanthostega/Ichthyostega. That was exactly what they found in Tiktaalik. In fact, they even show all of the fossils as being side groups:



They found a fossil with transitional features between lobe finned fish and later tetrapods. That is exactly what they were looking for.

Are you reading things after the fact or before the second discovery was made?

 

[Loudmouth]

They claimed it was a direct ancestor to the Tetrapod.

Quote?

I gave a quote from Jenny Clack that explained what they expected.

Notice that Jenny Clack never states that any of the fossils are a direct ancestor to any living species.

"‘Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes, or about what happened in the following Early Carboniferous period, after the end of the Devonian, when tetrapods became fully terrestrial."
Ahlberg, P.E. and Clack, J.A., Palaeontology: A firm step from water to land,Nature 440(7085):747–749, 6 April 2006 | doi:10.1038/440747a

Can you find any scientist saying that they expected to find a direct ancestor to living species in any fossil bed? Some may use the term "acenstor" in reference to an ancestral model, but I have yet to see Shubin, Clack, or Ahlberg say that they expect to ever find a fossil that is incontrovertably in the direct lineage leading to modern tetrapods.

 

[lifepsyop]

Bible-believing Christians -- some of them clergymen -- went looking for the results of the global flood. What they found completely contradicted the predictions of a flood; the strata they examined looked nothing they'd been laid down in a single universal flood. What these naturalists did, since they were honest folk, was to invent the field of geology to explain what they'd found.

As usual, you're conveniently leaving out the crucial point that the anti-catastrophism ideology that dominated the early geologist mindset at this time has since been overturned. This renders moot the argument you have about early geology supposedly debunking the flood. Even orthodox geologists now admit they were making fundamental errors in their interpretations of strata-forming processes.

Why do all evolutionists constantly skirt around this basic issue? I have a hard time chalking it up to ignorance at this point. There is no excuse for this kind of obfuscation.

The fossil record in fact looks nothing at all like what you'd expect from a flood. A flood would jumble all kinds of organisms together; fossils occur in a regular progression, varying enormously from bottom to top of the geologic column. A flood would occur at a single time; fossils range in age from billions of years to very recent. A global flood would produce a mass of poorly differentiated sediment;

Not according to actual science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7exxtkN8610

Of course you guys have been ignoring these sedimentology experiments for decades because they obliterate your "the flood would jumble everything up" arguments.

geological strata show a progression of scores of different environments -- sea bottom, coast, desert, swamp, forest -- all lying on top of one another, with multiple periods of millions of years spent above water and interspersed periods below water.

But you just demonstrated that your interpretation has to ignore scientific experiments that contradict it.

No evolutionary narrative could have accommodated finding Tiktaalik in Cambrian strata. Or in pre-Cambriban strata, which make up the bulk of the age of the Earth.

If 'higher' animals had been found in Cambrian strata, pioneering evolutionists would simply assume that a great deal of body-plan evolution had occurred prior, but the fossil record failed to preserve it. Sound familiar?

So far, you haven't offered me an alternative that would predict the existence of something like Tiktaalik, or that could do so with better than 20 million year accuracy, or that can predict anything about genetics.

I informed you that the Bible predicted the existence of the fossil record. Of all the different catastrophes these "bronze age goat-herders" could have written of, they chose one that directly explains the existence of billions of dead things, representatives of all kinds of life, buried in the ground. That alone should make you stop and think, but of course you won't.

 

[lifepsyop]

Why do we find fossil transitionals between fish and amphibians, but not birds and amphibians?

because fish and amphibians have similar movement capabilities and

Why do we find fossil transitionals between dinosaurs and birds, but not mammals and birds?

How do you explain this, other than through evolution?

Because "transitionals" are equivocal and subjective.

There used to be a proposed "transition" between amphibians and mammals.

If, hypothetically speaking, there were no dinosaur fossils, then evolutionists could draw a "transition" between therapsids (proto-mammals) and birds. Modern biologists have even proposed such a link.

Any lack of "transitions" can, of course, be blamed on nature not preserving them.

The great Fog of Evolution would settle over whatever data it has to work with and conjure up a narrative.

Don't forget that these "transitionals" don't have to be in any kind of sequential order in the fossil record, as has been demonstrated with the dino-bird and fish-tetrapod models. Something evolutionists love to ignore.

 

[sfs]

As usual, you're conveniently leaving out the crucial point that the anti-catastrophism ideology that dominated the early geologist mindset at this time has since been overturned. This renders moot the argument you have about early geology supposedly debunking the flood.

I'm ignoring it because it isn't true. There was a lively debate among early geologists about uniformitarianism. The reason catastrophism -- and especially catastrophism associated with a single, global flood -- was rejected was because it conflicted with observation.

Even orthodox geologists now admit they were making fundamental errors in their interpretations of strata-forming processes.

And their improved understanding of strata-forming processes does precisely nothing to support a global flood, right?

Why do all evolutionists constantly skirt around this basic issue? I have a hard time chalking it up to ignorance at this point. There is no excuse for this kind of obfuscation.

What issue? That virtually every competent geologist finds a global flood completely inconsistent with reality? When was the last time you saw an oil company hire a YEC geologist to find oil?

Of course you guys have been ignoring these sedimentology experiments for decades because they obliterate your "the flood would jumble everything up" arguments.

But you just demonstrated that your interpretation has to ignore scientific experiments that contradict it.

Do you seriously think that geologists can't detect this kind of process? Or that it's consistent with the real geological column? How does this process produce flat layers that extend for hundreds of miles in both directions? How does it produce one layer with fossils of marine invertebrates, followed by a layer with land animals, including a fossil soil with raindrops, followed by a layer with fossils of fish, followed by a layer of volcanic rock, followed by another ancient soil surface, this time showing impressions of raindrops, and so on for thousands of feet of rock? There's a reason geologists, including Christian geologists, overwhelmingly reject Flood geology.

If 'higher' animals had been found in Cambrian strata, pioneering evolutionists would simply assume that a great deal of body-plan evolution had occurred prior, but the fossil record failed to preserve it. Sound familiar?

Yes, it sounds very familiar. It's your usual response to evidence: well, if the evidence had contradicted evolution, scientists would have made up some explanation or other. It's your all-purpose excuse not to deal with the fact that the evidence does support evolution. Instead, you just have to argue with fantasy-scientists about fantasy-evidence. It's quite convenient, don't you think?

I informed you that the Bible predicted the existence of the fossil record. Of all the different catastrophes these "bronze age goat-herders" could have written of, they chose one that directly explains the existence of billions of dead things, representatives of all kinds of life, buried in the ground. That alone should make you stop and think, but of course you won't.

I've thought about these things for decades. Have you ever tried learning some of the science? Not looking for websites that refute the science -- actually learning it? Have you read Richard Wiens' article on radiometric dating, or Davis Young's books on geology and the Flood? These guys are Christians, and it would really be a good idea to learn some of the real science.

 

[Loudmouth]

because fish and amphibians have similar movement capabilities and

Bats and birds have similar movement capabilities, so why don't we see a bird to bat transitional?

Because "transitionals" are equivocal and subjective.

Funny how creationists unequivocably claim that there are no transitional fossils.

Is that all you have? You are incapable of determing if fossils have a mixture of features from two different taxa?

There used to be a proposed "transition" between amphibians and mammals.

There should be a transitional between the common ancestor of those two taxa and mammals. Since modern amphibians are less derived, that transitional would have been between an amphibian-like species and modern mammals. More accurately, it would be a transitional between amphibians and amniotes with mammals being a member of the amniote group.

You do understand how evolution works, right?

If, hypothetically speaking, there were no dinosaur fossils, then evolutionists could draw a "transition" between therapsids (proto-mammals) and birds. Modern biologists have even proposed such a link.

Reference?

Any lack of "transitions" can, of course, be blamed on nature not preserving them.

First you claim that we can't determine if a fossil is transitional. Now you say they are lacking. Which is it?

Don't forget that these "transitionals" don't have to be in any kind of sequential order in the fossil record, as has been demonstrated with the dino-bird and fish-tetrapod models. Something evolutionists love to ignore.

They do have to be in an order. You can't have rabbits in the Cambrian, as one example. You can't have descendants who are found well before their ancestors. The fact that we don't find mammals anywhere in the Cambrian is massive evidence for evolution. In fact, the only hints of terrestrial life we see in the Cambrian is bacterial mats. How do you explain that?

 

[lifepsyop]

Funny how creationists unequivocably claim that there are no transitional fossils.

Like I said, "transitional" is simply equivocation.

Is that all you have? You are incapable of determing if fossils have a mixture of features from two different taxa?

Sure. That's how Huxley's amphibian-mammal "transition" was established. See how flimsy and subjective the criteria is?

There should be a transitional between the common ancestor of those two taxa and mammals. Since modern amphibians are less derived, that transitional would have been between an amphibian-like species and modern mammals. More accurately, it would be a transitional between amphibians and amniotes with mammals being a member of the amniote group.

You do understand how evolution works, right?

Evolutionists used to believe that mammals evolved directly from amphibians (meaning no mammal-like-reptile intermediary) because of some shared characteristics. Huxley promoted it. Look it up.

If no "mammal-like reptiles" had been discovered, then the amphibian-mammal "transition" would have simply taken it's place. It's just the fog of evolution theory doing it's thing.

Reference?

The Haematothermia hypothesis

The Haematothermia hypothesis | Tetrapod Zoology, Scientific American Blog Network

It's easy to see how evolutionists would have adopted such a "transitional" sequence in the absence of a dino-bird story.

First you claim that we can't determine if a fossil is transitional. Now you say they are lacking. Which is it?

If no semblance of a "transitional" sequence can be proposed, then evolutionists can blame it on nature, i.e. lack of fossilization.

Is that simple enough for you or do I need to dumb it down further?

They do have to be in an order. You can't have rabbits in the Cambrian, as one example. You can't have descendants who are found well before their ancestors. The fact that we don't find mammals anywhere in the Cambrian is massive evidence for evolution. In fact, the only hints of terrestrial life we see in the Cambrian is bacterial mats. How do you explain that?

Zzzzz.. when evolutionists start ranting about rabbits in the Cambrian, you know they've been reduced to grasping at straws to prove they have a real theory.

Again, the inconvenient fact which you'd prefer to avoid is that fossil "transitions" do NOT need to be in order. They can be tens of millions of years (perhaps more) out of order and will still be promoted as "transitionals". This is a fact. Deal with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, "transitional" is simply equivocation.

Transitionals are very real. That you have to ignore the evidence says a lot about your argument.

Sure. That's how Huxley's amphibian-mammal "transition" was established. See how flimsy and subjective the criteria is?

You haven't shown any flimsy or subjective criteria, just made claims about them.

Evolutionists used to believe that mammals evolved directly from amphibians (meaning no mammal-like-reptile intermediary) because of some shared characteristics. Huxley promoted it. Look it up.

Our ancestors do include amphibians.

If no "mammal-like reptiles" had been discovered, then the amphibian-mammal "transition" would have simply taken it's place.

Where is this "amphibian-mammal transitional fossil" that you speak of?

The only one ignoring discovered fossils is you.

We could ask what you would do if we found hominid transitional fossils. The answer is that you ignore them. Such is the fog of creationism.

The Haematothermia hypothesis

From 1866? Seriously?

If no semblance of a "transitional" sequence can be proposed, then evolutionists can blame it on nature, i.e. lack of fossilization.

Once again, it is YOU that is ignoring the fossils.

Zzzzz.. when evolutionists start ranting about rabbits in the Cambrian, you know they've been reduced to grasping at straws to prove they have a real theory.

Then explain why we don't find rabbits in the Cambrian.

Again, the inconvenient fact which you'd prefer to avoid is that fossil "transitions" do NOT need to be in order.

The inconvenient fact is that the order we observe is correct. Once again, it is YOU that is ignoring the fossils.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They do have to be in an order. You can't have rabbits in the Cambrian, as one example. You can't have descendants who are found well before their ancestors. The fact that we don't find mammals anywhere in the Cambrian is massive evidence for evolution. In fact, the only hints of terrestrial life we see in the Cambrian is bacterial mats. How do you explain that?

What do you call well before their ancestors?

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you call well before their ancestors?

Hundreds of millions of years.

 

[lifepsyop]

Hundreds of millions of years.

Why "hundreds of millions" and not 50 million? Any clue? Didn't think so... just making things up as you go along.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why "hundreds of millions" and not 50 million? Any clue? Didn't think so... just making things up as you go along.

Still ignoring the transitional fossils?

 

[lifepsyop]

Still ignoring the transitional fossils?

I'm at work and don't have time to answer at the moment.

But it was a very simple question.

Why is a "hundreds of millions of years" fossil discrepancy a problem and not 50 million years? I'd really like to know your criteria. Educate me.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm at work and don't have time to answer at the moment.

But it was a very simple question.

Why is a "hundreds of millions of years" fossil discrepancy a problem and not 50 million years? I'd really like to know your criteria. Educate me.

Still ignoring the transitional fossils? It's a simple question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hundreds of millions of years.

What was your reasoning behind this time span? It couldn't have been due to the fact that Tiktaalik was 20 million years after tetrapods existed now could it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still ignoring the transitional fossils?

I don't think it is a matter of ignoring them but when a fossil is suppose to be a direct ancestor from one life form and transitional to another it would be nice if that other life form it is transitional to comes after that fossil rather than be dated before it.

 

[Loudmouth]

What was your reasoning behind this time span? It couldn't have been due to the fact that Tiktaalik was 20 million years after tetrapods existed now could it?

If I start digging and find a 100 year old human skeleton, does this mean that humans emerged on this planet just 100 years ago?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think it is a matter of ignoring them . . .

It is.

but when a fossil is suppose to be a direct ancestor . . .

Fossils are not considered to be direct ancestors.