Transitional Fossil Features

[AV1611VET]

Which one is worse, in your eyes?

Fishing for ammo, are you?

If someone believes in creationism, I don't believe they need to be knowledgeable in the area of evolution to say it's wrong.

Thus, little children should be able to look an evolutionist in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

Same for things like smoking.

It's a sin.

And I -- or a little child -- don't need to have a degree in physiology to be able to explain why we believe that.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I disagree.

 

[Strathos]

Fishing for ammo, are you?

If someone believes in creationism, I don't believe they need to be knowledgeable in the area of evolution to say it's wrong.

Thus, little children should be able to look an evolutionist in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

Same for things like smoking.

It's a sin.

And I -- or a little child -- don't need to have a degree in physiology to be able to explain why we believe that.

And when that little child learns the fact and realizes that the creationists were lying?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Found them for you.

A prime example of what I was talking about. You take things of the same species and call them separate species (Humans) and then throw in ape skulls and try to link them.

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

Except you have never found any transitional species of H. erectus, just a different breed of human. H. Erectus is simply another breed of human - as Husky is another breed of dog. Calling H. erectus another species is like calling those finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring different species. Just plain wrong.

Where did the breeds come from?

From the original pair that contained all the different combinations within their genomes - half in one of the pair and half in the other. Made clear when a part of Adam was removed to create Eve. When that DNA was then reunited - it created a new breed - a new creation.

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.

There is no more difference between H. erectus and H. Sapiens than there is between Wolf and German Shepard. No one has ever claimed that a Wolf is a German Shepard either, no one - but you sure understand that the German Shepard is just another breed of canine descended from the wolf, don't you. So why do you refuse to apply this empirical evidence to the fossil record????? Why do you keep insisting everything is a separate species when you have no idea what they were like when alive? H, erectus is just another breed of human as Chinese and Africans are different breeds of humans.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What are Ring Species, then? http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

Ring species are simply different breeds of the same species that no longer mate - like Chihuahua would be a ring breed to the wolf. You know it is of the same species - descended from the wolf, so just because they no longer mate means little, since you are quite aware of it's lineage. You may if you wish classify it as a subspecies of the wolf.

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

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Just as you may if you choose classify those ring species as subspecies, breeds, varieties, subvarieties or formae, but not species. They are infraspecific taxa brought about by local conditions. Again, it is simply your incorrect classifications due to incorrect pre-concieved ideas that leads you to this incorrect thought process. A thought process where you ignore your own definition of infraspecific taxa - which is what we are discussing when we discuss those so-called ring species.

http://iczn.org/nontaxonomy/term/471

Show me a single ring species that they do not believe came about due to local conditions? Then you should know they are infraspecific taxa - and not seperate species, shouldn't you, regardless of what they attempt to tell you so they can claim speciation.

EDIT:
I am asking nothing of you but that you go by scientific standards of classification as defined - and not willy-nilly however it suits you at the moment.

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So what infraspecific taxa would you like to consider those "ring species" to be? Because by scientific standards that is exactly what they are.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So which exact species did the humans and apes split from? Is this one of those places where we insert an imaginary missing link and start the gap game??????

It seems we always have examples of the end result, but never the ones we all came from.

You could never connect the two - and never will be able to.

 

[Willtor]

So which exact species did the humans and apes split from? Is this one of those places where we insert an imaginary missing link and start the gap game??????

It seems we always have examples of the end result, but never the ones we all came from.

You could never connect the two - and never will be able to.

If you look at the Homo Erectus line, you see that it's a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens. Likewise with Homo Heidelbergensis.

Generally, asserting that something is a father, as opposed to an uncle, is very hard to do and requires a lot of evidence. If you have two overlapping species, asserting that one is an offshoot of the other (and knowing which one) requires extra data. Further, if one looks exactly like one would expect the direct common ancestor to look like, but it has some change that we do not have (no matter how insignificant the change), you've almost certainly got an uncle rather than a father.

When you look at fossils, too, typically you should be thinking about the fossil as an example of a species that thrived and became extremely populous. Fossilization is an infrequent occurrence and the probability is very low that a small species (few in number) will have an individual that gets fossilized.

 

[MikeEnders]

I've got some reading ahead of me.

Hey PZ. I've enjoyed you and Justatruthseeker posts in this thread and just wanted to say that you should read around more than the links you were given. One is a pretty known atheist biased site and the whole horse evolution thing has been rebutted in a whole slew of sites. Thats pretty old stuff and the fact that Darwinists are still trumping it underlines a key point you made

Even for the ones they identify as transitional there sure are not a lot of them. In some cases we are talking about tens and hundreds of millions of years and they find one fossil with say flattened bones and something else that vaguely looks like something in a modern turtle (creationist have no issues with separate creatures having similar structures) and bam they have themselves a transitional even though hundreds (or more) steps would be needed to show the transition and they don't have even 1% of the transition to show.

The standard answer (which you have been given I see) is well we wouldn't expect to have much more because fossilization is not common enough. That may even be true but a major logical fallacy is invoked - The fact that you can make up excuses for why you don't have more evidence doesn't change the fact that you don't have that evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you look at the Homo Erectus line, you see that it's a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens. Likewise with Homo Heidelbergensis.

Generally, asserting that something is a father, as opposed to an uncle, is very hard to do and requires a lot of evidence. If you have two overlapping species, asserting that one is an offshoot of the other (and knowing which one) requires extra data. Further, if one looks exactly like one would expect the direct common ancestor to look like, but it has some change that we do not have (no matter how insignificant the change), you've almost certainly got an uncle rather than a father.

When you look at fossils, too, typically you should be thinking about the fossil as an example of a species that thrived and became extremely populous. Fossilization is an infrequent occurrence and the probability is very low that a small species (few in number) will have an individual that gets fossilized.

And before H. Erectus you have not a single predecessor for- all the way back to whatever was supposed to be the ancestor.

You just have imaginary link that split to imaginary link that split to imaginary link..... that split, yes, to imaginary link to imaginary link to the imagined link. I might have missed an imaginary link that split.

And don't try the lack of fossils please. We are still digging at those massive piles of fossils after 200+ years.

 

[snoopy500]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has undergone a small clean-up. If your post is missing it's because it was in violation of
Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Please keep on topic with the topic the OP has started.
Mod hat off​

 

[MikeEnders]

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?

Strathos by and large there is some merit in what you say but it has a few issues. Its a false forced conclusion that the child will grow up to be devout. I know this is a major rational for theistic evolution adherents but if in the process of teaching theistic evolution you end up twisting and contorting the natural reading of Genesis you are just as likely to instill (even unintentionally) the sense that all of the Bible can have that done to it and so you still end up with a child who though has no crisis moment in faith has very little of it anyway because his trust in what he reads was totally diminished over the years.

My own approach is to let genesis says what genesis says and stop where it stops. I was amazed to find out that when I go to the text , read it literally (without letting my own preconceived notions crowd into the reading) and explore it most of the controversy vanishes and I end up not accepting evolution but not having any issues (just here and there some questions - for both sides) with the fossil record.

 

[Willtor]

And before H. Erectus you have not a single predecessor for- all the way back to whatever was supposed to be the ancestor.

You just have imaginary link that split to imaginary link that split to imaginary link..... that split, yes, to imaginary link to imaginary link to the imagined link. I might have missed an imaginary link that split.

And don't try the lack of fossils please. We are still digging at those massive piles of fossils after 200+ years.

Okay, so you accept that Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are direct ancestors, at any rate. But it sounds like you didn't understand the rest of my post, since your response doesn't make sense in light of it. I apologize if I communicated badly. Please let me know what was unclear.

Re: fossils - I think you think fossils are more common than they really are. I've been to Dinosaur National Monument and seen their amazing rock face full of fossils that looks a lot like these images you've posted. Do you know why they would make a national monument out of such a thing? The reality is that fossilization is extremely uncommon. Probably, you and I will not fossilize. We'll completely decompose, as almost everybody and everything does. There will be virtually no physical evidence of us in a couple thousand years.

 

[PapaZoom]

Hey PZ. I've enjoyed you and Justatruthseeker posts in this thread and just wanted to say that you should read around more than the links you were given. One is a pretty known atheist biased site and the whole horse evolution thing has been rebutted in a whole slew of sites. Thats pretty old stuff and the fact that Darwinists are still trumping it underlines a key point you made

Even for the ones they identify as transitional there sure are not a lot of them. In some cases we are talking about tens and hundreds of millions of years and they find one fossil with say flattened bones and something else that vaguely looks like something in a modern turtle (creationist have no issues with separate creatures having similar structures) and bam they have themselves a transitional even though hundreds (or more) steps would be needed to show the transition and they don't have even 1% of the transition to show.

The standard answer (which you have been given I see) is well we wouldn't expect to have much more because fossilization is not common enough. That may even be true but a major logical fallacy is invoked - The fact that you can make up excuses for why you don't have more evidence doesn't change the fact that you don't have that evidence.

Good thoughts, thanks. I can't help but think the arguments being offered with respect to transitional fossils amount to a "missing fossils of the gaps" kind of argument. If there's little to no evidence for transitional forms, how can we assume they are there. It's odd to me that science can say things like, "just because we see design in nature doesn't mean it's designed." It's a "science of the gaps" argument. Science will one day solve this current riddle. We apparently don't have transitional fossils because fossil finds are rare even though we have found fossils in perhaps the upper millions (I read one source that said over billion). That doesn't seem rare to me. BTW, I recommend http://www.evolutionnews.org for the ID perspective on things.

 

[PapaZoom]

creationist descriptions

These days using the word "creationist" doesn't tell us anything. It certainly doesn't clarify a person't views. Anyone who believes God is behind the creation of the universe is a creationist. But creationists come in many flavors. Even deists are creationists.

 

[Willtor]

These days using the word "creationist" doesn't tell us anything. It certainly doesn't clarify a person't views. Anyone who believes God is behind the creation of the universe is a creationist. But creationists come in many flavors. Even deists are creationists.

That's fair. But that isn't typically how the word is used. In that sense, I'm a creationist. Typically, when people adopt or apply the term "creationist" on these forums, they're talking about people who accept a more-or-less literal interpretation of Genesis: young-earth creation, old-earth creation, or gap theory. Evolutionary creationists are not generally counted among creationists.

 

[PapaZoom]

That's fair. But that isn't typically how the word is used. In that sense, I'm a creationist. Typically, when people adopt or apply the term "creationist" on these forums, they're talking about people who accept a more-or-less literal interpretation of Genesis: young-earth creation, old-earth creation, or gap theory. Evolutionary creationists are not generally counted among creationists.

Exactly. I don't hold to a literal interpretation. I'm open to it however. But technically I'm a creationist because I believe there's an Intelligent Designer behind all of creation. I don't know how evolution fits into God's design plan but it's interesting to explore the argument from all sides.

 

[Willtor]

Exactly. I don't hold to a literal interpretation. I'm open to it however. But technically I'm a creationist because I believe there's an Intelligent Designer behind all of creation. I don't know how evolution fits into God's design plan but it's interesting to explore the argument from all sides.

That's fine, and I definitely give that a thumbs up. But be aware that on these forums, the term "creationist" is used (both by those who apply it to themselves and those who apply it to others) in a more restricted sense. The etymology is broader, but the context is more restricted.

 

[Split Rock]

Ring species are simply different breeds of the same species that no longer mate - like Chihuahua would be a ring breed to the wolf. You know it is of the same species - descended from the wolf, so just because they no longer mate means little, since you are quite aware of it's lineage. You may if you wish classify it as a subspecies of the wolf.

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

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Just as you may if you choose classify those ring species as subspecies, breeds, varieties, subvarieties or formae, but not species. They are infraspecific taxa brought about by local conditions. Again, it is simply your incorrect classifications due to incorrect pre-concieved ideas that leads you to this incorrect thought process. A thought process where you ignore your own definition of infraspecific taxa - which is what we are discussing when we discuss those so-called ring species.

http://iczn.org/nontaxonomy/term/471

Show me a single ring species that they do not believe came about due to local conditions? Then you should know they are infraspecific taxa - and not seperate species, shouldn't you, regardless of what they attempt to tell you so they can claim speciation.

EDIT:
I am asking nothing of you but that you go by scientific standards of classification as defined - and not willy-nilly however it suits you at the moment.

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So what infraspecific taxa would you like to consider those "ring species" to be? Because by scientific standards that is exactly what they are.

I thought you said they had to be able to mate with one another if they are the same species? Looks like you are the one changing your definition "willy nilly however it suits you." Please explain why ring species are not evidence of speciation at work. It is exactly what we expect speciation to look like.

 

[Split Rock]

And don't try the lack of fossils please. We are still digging at those massive piles of fossils after 200+ years.

Please explain why we are still identifying new species every year.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

I agree with you buddy, though I don't see anything wrong with science getting us to the conclusion of common descent (that is where we differ).

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)

My buddy AVET is correct. Scientists don't deny science even if you use scare quotes for the term. You reject what conflicts with your faith. Shiny mirror is shiny.

Is it OK for creationists like yourself to reject science because you are filled with pride based on your faith?