Transitional Fossil Features

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
No you don't. You have smooth common ordered differences back to H. Erectus, then the imaginary gap game and missing transitions come into the game.

Found them for you.

toskulls2.jpg



The problem is evolutionist's never want to consider the evidence that goes against their theory.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Finding 3 individuals from the transitional species H. erectus is 3 transitional fossils.

Models based upon individual, isolated species predicts exactly what we see. The gradual variation between breeds of the same species.

Where did the breeds come from?

Also, no one has ever claimed that H. erectus is H. sapiens. No one. They are not a breed of H. sapiens. You can't point to a single feature that H. erectus is missing that a transitional would have.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No you don't. You have smooth common ordered differences back to H. Erectus, then the imaginary gap game and missing transitions come into the game. It's already been shown you got half of what you thought wrong and had your entire claimed lineage thrown into disarray. The problem is evolutionist's never want to consider the evidence that goes against their theory.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Excuse me, but you got that wrong too. Models based upon individual, isolated species predicts exactly what we see. The gradual variation between breeds of the same species. You know, when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian. Or when a Husky mates with a Mastiff and produces a Chinook. All within their individual isolated species. This is all you have ever observed, until we play the incorrectly misidentify things in the fossil record as separate species instead of breeds and begin the imaginary missing transitional game. I require no imaginary missing fossils. I just simply have to apply what we observe - breed mating with breed producing new breeds.

I need not pretend these are separate species, and claim non-existent transitional forms:

horned-dinosaurs.gif


But just accept those dinosaur are just different breeds of the same species per observations and common sense.

dog-breeds-photos-and-info-hd-dog-breeds---dogs-puppies-and-cats--32-dogs-types---theanimals-awesome.jpg


They are no more separate species than dog breeds are separate species or cat breeds are separate species. There is no need at all to pretend otherwise - and direct empirical evidence that backs up breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species.

Evolutionists have nothing but a few bones of creatures never once observed in life - in which they classify them incorrectly based upon non-empirical pre-concieved beliefs, while ignoring how we know life propagates in the here and now. And then refuse to apply what we observe to the fossil record, or birds that clearly interbreed and produce fertile offspring and so are of one species. No difference between those finches or dogs or cats - except they classified them incorrectly based upon pre-concieved beliefs before they ever bothered to study them.

The racist stuff is fodder for another thread.

But the picture that Loudmouth posted is the one I would have posted to show the smooth transition. The "A" skull on that list is not anything that anybody would call a modern human. Again, if you're looking for a non-functional partial feature, evolution predicts that it doesn't exist.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Okay, good! So, as it turns out, the theory of evolution means different things depending on whether you are reading a scientific source or a creationist source. The creationist version of evolution is contrary to the science version of evolution. What you are looking for (partial -- not conferring benefits) is predicted by the creationist version of evolution but actually contradicts the science version of evolution.

Evolution, as proposed by scientists, means the changes are all gradual (just like in the creationist version), but it also says that each change is independently beneficial. So, as to the eye, each change that is made has to be justified as an improvement (in the sense that it makes organisms that have it more likely to pass on their genes) over what was there, previously. The trivial light-sensitive dot that doesn't give an image is beneficial over not having the dot. After that, a change that makes the dot concave provides the benefit of directionality. And so on.

Scientific evolution requires each change to be independently justifiable in terms of the likelihood of passing on the gene. Therefore, if there is a partially-formed feature that isn't functional, that would support what creationist sources call the theory of evolution, but would actually undermine the real theory of evolution.

I don't know what you mean by creationist source. I'm not a fan of arguments that claim that Christians who believe in an intelligent agency behind the universe can't be "real" scientists. It's a genetic fallacy anyway. That's like saying atheist scientists can't be trusted because they are atheists.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
It is incomplete for single species. For some species, we only have one fossil that represents that entire species. Do you really think that species only ever had one individual in it?

With so many transitional forms necessary I would expect a good sampling.

We could use passenger pigeons as another example. That species was once so numerous that the flocks stretched for multiple miles, and they would blot out the sun. They numbered in the billions. Since then, we hunted them to extinction. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils we have? Just a handful, and that is from a recent species that numbered in the billions, perhaps trillions of individuals over the centuries.

But it's not about one species but a multitude. And we don't have a fair representation given the number of different species. And as far as birds go, I find it interesting that studies indicate that birds arose in a "big bang" explosion of their own.

How do you determine if a fossil has a fully developed body plan? Until you explain that, it is a meaningless term.

I probably shouldn't use "fully developed" but rather "unique" body plans. Add to that "complex anatomical features."

Until you define what features a fossil needs in order to be a precursor it is a meaningless term. For example, what features does a precursor for modern humans need?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206146

The light sensitive eyespot is a transition between no eye and the more complex eyes we see in modern animals. If you won't accept that rather obvious transition, why would you accept the others? If a light sensitive eye is a "fully developed body plan", then it seems that the term really doesn't mean anything.

I accept it as a possibility but could there be another explanation? And where are other examples of eye development of the eye? Perhaps light sensitivity didn't lead to the development of the eye but was simply a primitive survival trait to stay out of the light and keep in the shadows.

A fish with wrists is exactly what a transitional should be.

True but it's not clear that that is what has been observed. It seems that that particular fish has a fin anatomy that is similar to fish today.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't know what you mean by creationist source. I'm not a fan of arguments that claim that Christians who believe in an intelligent agency behind the universe can't be "real" scientists. It's a genetic fallacy anyway. That's like saying atheist scientists can't be trusted because they are atheists.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm a scientist, and I believe in God.

I'm saying that when you read creationist descriptions of evolution, they are descriptions of a theory that is actually contrary to the theory of evolution as held by scientists. Both use the word "evolution" but they mean different things. The scientific theory of evolution isn't looking for (and would be harmed by) the discovery of species with partially formed, but not beneficial features.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm saying that when you read creationist descriptions of evolution, they are descriptions of a theory that is actually contrary to the theory of evolution as held by scientists.
That doesn't bother me though.

As long as they don't believe in evolution ... that's good enough for me.

Creationism is evolution's antithesis, so they don't need to know the particulars.

HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.

It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.

It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.
Why? There is nothing wrong with science as long as you don't allow it to fill you with pride. In fact I see evolutionist have to continue to deny "science" to continue hold on to their faith. Since Naturalist worldview doesn't match reality they will continue to finding themselves running into "reality" like a blind man running into a wall. If you listen closely you can hear them smacking into the wall of truth. (Or like coyote fall off the cliff after being chased by the truck loaded with evidence)

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
(Or like coyote fall off the cliff after being chased by the truck loaded with evidence)
Yes, but this isn't cartoon physics we're dealing with and, in my opinion, if we try to fight fire with fire (science with science), we're the ones that will usually get burned.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but this isn't cartoon physics we're dealing with and, in my opinion, if we try to fight fire with fire (science with science), we're the ones that will usually get burned.
Are you sure? Sometimes I feel like scientist are using cartoon physics especially when they admit something breaks all known laws of physics. Just make sure when you are fighting fire you got your shield of faith up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't know. What do paleontologists have to say about it?

As one book I read stated, technically, every fossil found is transitional, but some more obvious than others.

Actually that's not true because a fossil of a creature that was the last of its kind before it went extinct wouldn't be transitional.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you sure? Sometimes I feel like scientist are using cartoon physics especially when they admit something breaks all known laws of physics. Just make sure when you are fighting fire you got your shield of faith up.
No argument there! :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That doesn't bother me though.

As long as they don't believe in evolution ... that's good enough for me.

Creationism is evolution's antithesis, so they don't need to know the particulars.

HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.

It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.

Arguing against an idea one doesn't understand is like flailing one's arms in the dark and calling it boxing. Before you argue against a thing, you should know what it is. Otherwise, it isn't even obvious that it's something that you need to fight.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That doesn't bother me though.

As long as they don't believe in evolution ... that's good enough for me.

Creationism is evolution's antithesis, so they don't need to know the particulars.

HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.

It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.

This is a horrible way to think. Consider this:

A child is raised by creationist parents and a creationist church. The child is told "evolution is wrong, because it claims X, which isn't true".

The child then goes to school, and learns that evolution does not, in fact, claim X, and all of the actual evidence points toward evolution being true. He/she then realizes that the creationists lied, and figures that if they were lying about that, they might have been lying about everything else as well, so the child deconverts and becomes an atheist. (Talk to several atheists, many of them will give you a story about their upbringing very similar to this).

Meanwhile, there is a child raised by theistic evolutionist parents and a theistic evolutionist church. They are taught that God created the universe, was incarnated as Jesus Christ, and died to absolve us of our sins. Pretty much the same thing the creationist church teaches, with the exception that evolution is a scientific fact and one of the many processes in God's creation.

This child then goes to school, learns more about evolution, but it never does anything to threaten their faith. He/she then grows up to be a devout Christian.

Which of these scenarios is preferable?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Arguing against an idea one doesn't understand is like flailing one's arms in the dark and calling it boxing. Before you argue against a thing, you should know what it is. Otherwise, it isn't even obvious that it's something that you need to fight.
If I own a red car and someone says it's not red, but xlorph, should I know what xlorph looks like before I disagree?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If I own a red car and someone says it's not red, but xlorph, should I know what xlorph looks like before I disagree?

If you say it isn't xlorph, you should know what you are saying.
 
Upvote 0