Another Fossil Transitional Species that shouldn't exist ... Meet Pappochelys

[Loudmouth]

it is pretty laughable that even on a Christian site agnostics and atheist think they can dismiss creationists sites just because they are creationist sites but think that talk origins should be accepted as any objective unbiased source.

We have demonstrated that creationist sites misrepresent the facts. When have you ever done that with talkorigins?

BTW aren't you guys tired of making claims of links that never actually pan out as such?

Aren't you tired of making allegations that you will never back up?

 

[Loudmouth]

Soft tissue and proteins anyone?

Nice straw by the way. Grade A that Elsie (my cow) will love. Bible precludes fossils where? chapter and verse please or is it necessity is the mother of invention?

Fossils recently buried would not be heavily permineralized. They would still be bone. We shouldn't find so many fossils that have been permineralized.

 

[In situ]

Soft tissue and proteins anyone?

Fossils are per definition mineralization of tissue. In other words stones. Silicon is part of stones, are you surprised then if you treat stones with the right kind of chemicals you can get soft "tissue" ?

"soft tissues are preserved as carbon films or as permineralized three-dimensional replications, but in none of these cases are they described as still-soft, pliable tissues"

Schweitzer et al, Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science.

 

[In situ]

We have demonstrated that creationist sites misrepresent the facts.When have you ever done that with talkorigins?

A true creationist does not need to demonstrate anything - it is enough to just believe something, and deny anything else, then it must be so.

 

[In situ]

couldn't this be just another line of animal with no relation at all to the others?

I haven't not checked this case, but it can only be possible if it posses unique characteristics that is not found in any other lineages AND cannot be explained as modified structures already found in other lineages.

aren't human ribs sort of flat with a sternum that could be seen as the "beginnings" of the under part of a turtle? what would cause this rib cage to grow outside the body?

An organism is a whole and not its parts. You need to look at the organism as a whole in order to properly place it within the linage it belongs.

i believe koonin and noble are right, we must get away from this "small gradual change" bit that has pervaded evolution since its inception.

The changes are still small and gradual and well within the speed of normal gradual evolution. These "fast" changes usually happens over tens of million of years. There is plenty of room for "fast" modification there.

sure it does, but small gradual change is not responsible for macroevolution.

Yes it is, it is not like we find only fish in one layer and in the next layer 1 million year later find dinosaurs.

"Fast" means "fast" changes over say 50 million year...

And btw, "macro" evolution is just evolution that has accumulated more changes, e.g. changes beyond the genus level. Accumulation of changes is a function of time. Trivially, the more time the more changes can occur simply because more generation has past that can pass down those changes.

 

[In situ]

I'd like someone to point out this nostril for me that is in the expected location??????

Ironically you posted the correct picture of Ambulocetus natans with its pelvis intact. Normally YEC's like to showcase the picture with its pelvis "missing". And for the nostrils, yes there are fossils that shows the nasal opening retract and migrate to the top of the skull. For instance the basilosaurid Dorudon has its nasal opening retracted midway. Why you believe this picture of Ambulocetus natans, somehow, disproves these evidence is beyond me. I guess you just is a troll....

 

[In situ]

I'd like someone to point out this nostril for me that is in the expected location??????

 

[MikeEnders]

Always happy to oblige a genuine enquiry.....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

If you are always happy then why didn't you? Read the request again and see if you can answer

I'd love a link to that one -BEFORE THE FACT. We are all very well aware of claims that Darwinism predicted something - AFTER IT WAS DISCOVERED

what you instead provided (as if it was proof of a prediction)was a postdiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Hopefully you now understand the difference. The problem with saying something was predicted after the fact is something I would have thought an atheist would understand not promote as a legitimate answer.

Meanwhile unfortunately the link wasn't even instructive. Who didn't know about fusions

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...nsus-could-benefit-from-more-fact-checking-2/

 

[MikeEnders]

"soft tissues are preserved as carbon films or as permineralized three-dimensional replications, but in none of these cases are they described as still-soft, pliable tissues"

Schweitzer et al, Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science.

Trying to pretend that that answers the issues I referred to is impressive but I suspect we both know why there was a furor over Schweitzers work. What she and quite a few others have found after her was not at all suspected. She has even tried to exlpain how what she found could have survived for the age the materials were but the answer comes up short. In addition to what she found we can now add proteins.

 

[In situ]

The problem with saying something was predicted after the fact is something I would have thought an atheist would understand not promote as a legitimate answer.

Do you always take a single observation and then generalize as common trait if over an entiere group of people?

 

[In situ]

We are all very well aware of claims that Darwinism predicted something - after it was discovered

Ecatly how did Darwin manage to predict things that was discovered after his death?

 

[MikeEnders]

We have demonstrated that creationist sites misrepresent the facts.

A) You have done nothing of the sort
B) you do not represent an authoritative "We" on this site
C) Talk Origin is an anti religious biased site not an authoritative scientific source

because creation sites disagree with you does not equate to your illogical conclusion that you have discredited all articles on all creationist sites. Your rational is chock full of fallacious arguments.

Still I can oblige your request for a demonstration of their hackery and simultaneously prove the site is nothing but an atheist promotion location

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH110.html

Really?? a legit science site getting into bible prophecy and using a quote from WATCHTOWER article as their spring board? and then showing their authoritative source as a material from another atheist site? thats your idea of an authoritative science site? Please.

 

[MikeEnders]

Do you always take a single observation and then generalize as common trait if over an entiere group of people?

aahhh. You mean like when you wrote

A true creationist does not need to demonstrate anything - it is enough to just believe something, and deny anything else, then it must be so.

Umm....... care to explain the duplicity?

 

[MikeEnders]

Ecatly how did Darwin manage to predict things that was discovered after his death?

Did I say Darwin or did I say Darwinism? When you use the word "exactly" you should actually read enough to be accurate about what someone said.

 

[In situ]

Trying to pretend that that answers the issues I referred to is impressive

I am not ptretendign any thing; the report clealry state they found preserved structures, not tissue.

Whether you like that answer or not is irrelevant.

but I suspect we both know why there was a furor over Schweitzers work.

I am not aware of any scientific "furor" over her work. Does this "furor" has to do something with wishful thinking YEC's that thought something was found that actually never was found (like blood)?

What she and quite a few others have found after her was not at all suspected.

Yes fragement of organic molecules, color pigment elastic structure, etc yes. While interesting results, it is nothing revolutionary that turn our present knowledge up-side down. If that is what you try to imply, which is indicated by your next statemente below that you indeed are trying, then you are in error.

She has even tried to exlpain how what she found could have survived for the age the materials were but the answer comes up short.

So what? What make you think she has the correct answer to everything? It is part of her work, as a scientist, to try explain her findings. Why do you think this is so remarkable that it needs to be mentioned?

In addition to what she found we can now add proteins.

Source?

At any rate; proteins is not tissue.

 

[MikeEnders]

I haven't not checked this case, but it can only be possible if it posses unique characteristics that is not found in any other lineages AND cannot be explained as modified structures already found in other lineages.

Ahhhh - now this demonstrates why Darwinists tend to see transitional fossils where creationists don't and why you consider some things so persuasive and we collectively yawn - Presumption and assumptions of Darwinists.

There are a whole slew of lineages structures that do not exist today in both the evolutionary and creationist framework. Diversities within species and similarities between them and both sides accept that a whole bunch of them are extinct. Merely using the criteria of "other lineages" that we know about ignores that. Take a typical one - feathers. Historically people have taken feathers in the fossil record as to be associated with modern birds but in the creationist framework (or logically) nothing excludes other groups from having them and having gone extinct. Yes I am being simplistic for brevity now but - a darwinist digs them up and voila he is sure he has found a transitional.

 

[MikeEnders]

I am not ptretendign any thing; the report clealry state they found preserved structures, not tissue.

Soft tissue is a reference to the whole controversy. I am not the only one that uses that reference. I think I am beginning to see your problem.

I am not aware of any scientific "furor" over her work.

Okay fact proven. I DO see your problem. You have no clue about the subject. ANyone who knows anything about thi subject would know perfectly well what the furor over her work was and knows it was not limited to YECs as you just tried to beg. Please come back when you have done some reading. A simple google search for her name is bound to bring it up

At any rate; proteins is not tissue.

sorry but ....Duh? No one said it was. YOu do know what the word ADD means right? In addition to not synonymous with the soft tissue controversy. That was is in subsequent findings

 

[In situ]

aahhh. You mean like when you wrote

"A true creationist does not need to demonstrate anything - it is enough to just believe something, and deny anything else, then it must be so."

Umm....... care to explain the duplicity?

Yes there is two main differences; unlike YEC's atheists does not a confirm to a uniform world view shared among them that influence their beliefs in a certain direction. For instance Buddhist are atheists but I have very little common with Buddhist beliefs. Secondly, I am not referring to all creationists, but the hard core creationists - "the true one". These are a special bread of creationists. Do I need to quote official YEC sites in where they state that no evidence can never convince them of otherwise? In other words there is a hard core of creationists, the true one, that deserve this labling because they have labeled them self as being that way in the first place.

However, in your case you are making a general sweeping statement about a large population of people with disjunct world views and beliefs. As I see it, the purpose of your statement is to be pejorative about atheist in general when you have no foundation for doing so. However, if this was not your intention to imply this, then I appologize.

 

[In situ]

Ahhhh - now this demonstrates why Darwinists tend to see transitional fossils where creationists don't and why you consider some things so persuasive and we collectively yawn - Presumption and assumptions of Darwinists.

No, what it demonstrate is your ignorance in biology and the usages of terms to label people.

 

[MikeEnders]

Yes there is two main differences; .

There are no differences. You got caught in being hypocritical. You made a sweeping statement about true creationists then are begging everyone else is wrong if they make statements about another group. Now you are just trying to rationalize your way out of having to admit your position is hypocritical but it will never work.