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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I don't mind evolutionist rejoicing when they think they have found one of the many transitional fossils needed to support their faith. Since evolutionist predicted thousands if not millions of transitional fossils it's near impossible to not find a few fossils to fit their theory. (even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day) Yet as it's revealed in the Dover trial evolutionist has to cherry pick the features in order to support their tree. Homology is useless to evolution as a good example is how evolutionist cherry picking features when they compare thylacine vs wolf vs kangaroo.
The Dover trial? You mean the one where the conservative judge concluded that I.D. is just creationism with a new ribbon on it?

BTW, Sky, its the transitionals that we don't find that are the most telling.. like between mammals and birds or between lizards and fish... ones that evolution predicts we shouldn't find.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The Dover trial? You mean the one where the conservative judge concluded that I.D. is just creationism with a new ribbon on it?

BTW, Sky, its the transitionals that we don't find that are the most telling.. like between mammals and birds or between lizards and fish... ones that evolution predicts we shouldn't find.
The judge only judged if questioning Darwinism should be allowed in public schools. What I referring to is the actual scientist in the trial cherry picking features to fit their assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Y claim not to be required to answer my questions (because I am not a "chief inquisitor," yet you apparently are), even though you expect me to answer your questions. Double standard, anyone?

I've answered many questions and some of them are even in this thread. You have answered none of mine. I didn't CLAIM anything. I stated the fact that you are not in any position to demand what you don't give. I told you before I would not keep playing your game on that. NO need to cry about what you were informed before was not going to be permitted endlessly

From now on, if you aren't going to even attempt to answer my questions, don't bother asking me to answer yours.

Been my position ever since you begged off answering mine.

P.S. for people who may answer your question not knowing that you won't answer theirs (because you can't) you might want to consider a better one than why fish would appear at the lower "stratas" (or for that matter using the failed strategy of claiming a fossil does not exist because it does not show up in the fossil record - which you elsewhere beg the opposite for to answer the lack of more transitional fossils). Every year new discoveries discredit that rational over and over again. Still not answering your questions due to your failure to answer any - just a free tip. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
A) You have done nothing of the sort

We could start with this page, if you want.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html

Specifically, this claim:

"Out of tens of thousands of ERV elements in the human genome, roughly how many are known to occupy the same sites in humans and chimpanzees? According to this Talk-Origins article, at least seven. Let's call it less than a dozen. Given the sheer number of these retroviruses in our genome (literally tens of thousands), and accounting for the evidence of integration preferences and site biases which I have documented above, what are the odds of finding a handful of ERV elements which have independently inserted themselves into the same locus?"

Do you think this stands up to the facts?

B) you do not represent an authoritative "We" on this site

Why not?
C) Talk Origin is an anti religious biased site not an authoritative scientific source

Where does TO attack religion? Why aren't peer reviewed research articles valid scientific sources?

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

Do you have a problem with facts?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Sorry, what Dr. Shubin found was NOT a tetrapod, it was a fish with two bones in its fins that kind'a look like two of the many bones in the wrists of tetrapods.

Then what would a real transitional look like? Would it have no similarity to tetrapods?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I offered a couple of different possibilities for the footprints found earlier than the Devonian of what appear to be tetrapods. While its possible a case of convergent evolution, I actually think it is more likely that fishapods simply evolved earlier than the Devonian, before the creatures that left the footprints did. We just haven't found fossils yet in these earlier layers, just like we have no fossils of the actual creatures who made the footprints. The fishapods continued to survive until the Devonian and then went extinct. The fact remains that we don't know what these creatures that made the footprints actually looked like, so its hard to judge.

It's pure science fiction, from your imagination, all the way to Journal publishing.
The better story tellers spin the best tales with just enough evidence sprinkled in.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What realities do you want faced? What do you think so problematic with those species?

Nothing in the slightest. Yet I hear no talk of "transitional" anywhere.
Because such talk is "stupid?"
Likely.
 
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

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
We could start with this page, if you want.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html

Do you think this stands up to the facts?

IN case you missed it I already indicated where we could start

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

specifically

"The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry........................Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves. Furthermore, in modern whales the auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed. "

Now thats some tripe


"Why not?"

Why you can't you speak for "we" on a christian forum? Seriously? try to think why that would be. when last have CHristians appointed agnostics as their spokeperson?

"Where does TO attack religion? Why aren't peer reviewed research articles valid scientific sources?"

Oh please...only in your dreams is TO a peer reviewed scientific journal and them getting involved in discussions of the bible and prophecy show exactly that they are not a science based site and are hacks by using the watchtower article "which is published by JWs which many many consider a cult and citing their source as another atheist site. Pure hackery at its finest.

Do you have a problem with facts?

NO thats why I am still laughing at TO talking about Whales.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
IN case you missed it I already indicated where we could start

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

specifically

"The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry........................Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves. Furthermore, in modern whales the auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed. "

Now thats some tripe


"Why not?"

Why you can't you speak for "we" on a christian forum? Seriously? try to think why that would be. when last have CHristians appointed agnostics as their spokeperson?

"Where does TO attack religion? Why aren't peer reviewed research articles valid scientific sources?"

Oh please...only in your dreams is TO a peer reviewed scientific journal and them getting involved in discussions of the bible and prophecy show exactly that they are not a science based site and are hacks by using the watchtower article "which is published by JWs which many many consider a cult and citing their source as another atheist site. Pure hackery at its finest.



NO thats why I am still laughing at TO talking about Whales.

Ay! Whoa! What's ya problem with whales all of a sudden?!
 
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

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
I'll restate. What's your problem with the TO article on whales?

I'll restate and specify - this is tripe

""The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry........................Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves"

Still lost as to what I am taking issue with?
 
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

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
I'll restate and specify - this is tripe

""The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry........................Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves"

Still lost as to what I am taking issue with?

I'm on the edge of my seat
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.