Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

I would ask what is your opinion about what is 'evolution', because the definition is vital to understanding transitional fossils.

Evolution is the process by which all living organisms are thought to have descended from a common ancestor over billions of years. In the particular path I was discussing, ancient reptiles evolved into synapsids that evolved into therapsids that evolved into mammals that diversified to form the variety of mammals found today.

How do you explain that hundreds of millions of years ago we see ancient reptiles in the fossil record but no mammals? None of these creatures back then had the mammalian single lower jaw bone or the three little bones in the ear. Then, about 300 million years ago there was a period in which a progression of synapsids, therapsids, and other forms incrementally transformed to look more and more like mammals, reaching the morganucodon about 205 million years ago. By about 80 million years ago, placental mammals began appearing with the fully formed prototype of the mammal jaw and ear.

Now how do you explain that? So far there is only one view on the table: that ancient reptiles evolved into synapsids which evolved into therapsids which evolved into mammals. If you have an alternative view on what happened, and why the fossil record shows what it shows, please feel free to put your view on the table.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I would ask what is your opinion about what is 'evolution', because the definition is vital to understanding transitional fossils.

In simple terms, mammal evolution was this:

Any questions?

 

[xianghua]

Didn't see it obviously, which is easy to do with a half a dozen short snipes instead of one complete post that covers the topic in context. You bent over backwards to insult me for my religion but didn't notice we had the same definition. That is, in a word, confused.

hi mark. are you refering to my comment?

 

[xianghua]

Uh no, there is actually strong evidence for evolution. You just ignore it.

This thread is about transitional fossils. I mentioned to you that, hundreds of millions of years ago, there were no mammals or anything close to mammals, but there were fish and reptiles. Then, after a long period of mammal-like reptiles that incrementally introduced mammal features, we find many different mammals on earth. That is all consistent with evolution. I have asked you how you interpret that evidence. You just ignore it. If you just ignore the evidence we present, then you can hardly complain that there is no evidence.

its easy. we have 2 possibilities: mammals created in another geological time, or just dont left any fossil in this period. remember also that there is much more species of reptiles then mammals. so there is more chance that we will find first a reptile fossil and then mammal one.

What is your explanation that the fossa is closely related to other Madagascar species, but is not so close to the cat, which it superficially resembles?

this is because they all belong to the same family- eupleridae. so they may indeed have a common ancestor. but actually some morphological evidences point to the opposite direction:

Fossa (animal) - Wikipedia

"However, in 1995, Veron's morphological study once again grouped it with Felidae"

I am not arranging ancient reptiles, synapsids, therapsids, and mammals in an order. They were put in that order by whatever process layed down the fossil record.

true. first: what about fossils in the wrong order? if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. dont you think?

secondly- as far as i know cars was invented first. then a commercial one and then a truck. so they also appeared in the correct order.

 

[Speedwell]

true. first: what about fossils in the wrong order? if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. dont you think?

Unless there is a convincing reason for the mis-ordering.

secondly- as far as i know cars was invented first. then a commercial one and then a truck. so they also appeared in the correct order.

The first mechanically powered vehicle was a steam tractor used for hauling artillery, built by Nicolas Cugnot in 1771. The second was a steam carriage, basically a public bus, built by Richard Trevithic in 1801. The first powered vehicle which would be recognized as an "automobile" by the modern layman was Josef Bozek's 1815 steam car.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is the process by which all living organisms are thought to have descended from a common ancestor over billions of years. In the particular path I was discussing, ancient reptiles evolved into synapsids that evolved into therapsids that evolved into mammals that diversified to form the variety of mammals found today.

No it's not, that's Darwinian naturalistic assumption.Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of allele frequencies in populations over time. That has been the definition for almost a hundred years, look it up.

How do you explain that hundreds of millions of years ago we see ancient reptiles in the fossil record but no mammals? None of these creatures back then had the mammalian single lower jaw bone or the three little bones in the ear. Then, about 300 million years ago there was a period in which a progression of synapsids, therapsids, and other forms incrementally transformed to look more and more like mammals, reaching the morganucodon about 205 million years ago. By about 80 million years ago, placental mammals began appearing with the fully formed prototype of the mammal jaw and ear.

Now how do you explain that? So far there is only one view on the table: that ancient reptiles evolved into synapsids which evolved into therapsids which evolved into mammals. If you have an alternative view on what happened, and why the fossil record shows what it shows, please feel free to put your view on the table.

That's the standard line, go deep into history and replace the inductive methodology with supposition and fanciful speculation. We don't you come current and address what we have extensive research material and enormous evidential material. Try the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. You don't like inverse logic or alternative explanations. If things in common are evidence of common ancestry then does divergence indicate separate lineage?

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution = the change in alleles in a population due to changes in environment or environmental pressure.
Science = the study of the natural world.

Except for the 'what it's do to', that's the definition of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

No it's not, that's Darwinian naturalistic assumption.Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of allele frequencies in populations over time. That has been the definition for almost a hundred years, look it up.



That's the standard line, go deep into history and replace the inductive methodology with supposition and fanciful speculation. We don't you come current and address what we have extensive research material and enormous evidential material. Try the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. You don't like inverse logic or alternative explanations. If things in common are evidence of common ancestry then does divergence indicate separate lineage?

The bottom line here is that common ancestry is a reasonable (provisional) assumption based on what we know about how evolution works. In the absence of a credible alternative explanation, that's enough to be going on with.

 

[mark kennedy]

hi mark. are you refering to my comment?

No, in post 225 warden of the storm posted a pretty good definition for evolution that I had been arguing for, for two pages. That was my response when he asked me why I didn't comment on it. Sometimes on this phone my cut and paste is limited, might have been the reason for the confusion.

Anyway I'm once again correcting a bogus definition from doughtingmerel. They like to equivocated Darwinian natural history with adaptive evolution. The reason is pretty obvious, adaptive evolution has a molecular , myths dont.

 

[mark kennedy]

The bottom line here is that common ancestry is a reasonable (provisional) assumption based on what we know about how evolution works. In the absence of a credible alternative explanation, that's enough to be going on with.

That's not a bottom line, it's an a priori assumption. They posters thus far seldom manage a working scientific definition, why would I trust them to make honest inferences from real evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

That's not a bottom line, it's an a priori assumption. They posters thus far seldom manage a working scientific definition, why would I trust them to make honest inferences from real evidence?

It's not an a priori assumption, it is an assumption based on what we have discovered about how evolution works. Regardless, have you a substantive criticism or a credible alternative?

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not an a priori assumption, it is an assumption based on what we have discovered about how evolution works. Regardless, have you a substantive criticism or a credible alternative?

I can't even get you to acknowledge the working definition for 'evolution', that all evolutionary biologists agree on. Evolution is a phenomenon but you want to include all living things throughout all time. That makes it transendant, a substantative element that tranends all living history. That's not a pejorative statement, it's the recognition of an a priori propositional fact. You could say the same thing about the doctrine of creation, of God as Creator or Christ who makes all things new at the end of the age. God's power to create life was exercised, not just during creation week but throughout redemptive history culminating with the translation of believers at the parousia. Or do you dismiss miracles as hyperbole?

The inverse logic is intuitively obvious so what's with the rhetorical question of an alternative?

 

[Speedwell]

I can't even get you to acknowledge the working definition for 'evolution', that all evolutionary biologists agree on.

I am not party to that particular discussion.

Evolution is a phenomenon but you want to include all living things throughout all time. That makes it transcendent, a substantive element that transcends all living history.

So?

That's not a pejorative statement, it's the recognition of an a priori propositional fact. You could say the same thing about the doctrine of creation, of God as Creator or Christ who makes all things new at the end of the age. God's power to create life was exercised, not just during creation week but throughout redemptive history culminating with the translation of believers at the parousia.

I'm not sure I see what one thing has to do with the other. Evolution is about our earthly, physical bodies. Redemptive history is about our souls.

Or do you dismiss miracles as hyperbole?

?

The inverse logic is intuitively obvious so what's with the rhetorical question of an alternative?

Indulge an old man whose intuition is apparently failing him. In any case, it was not meant as a rhetorical question.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not party to that particular discussion. So?I'm not sure I see what one thing has to do with the other. Evolution is about our earthly, physical bodies. Redemptive history is about our souls. ?

Creation is about God creating life, the Gospel is about the translation of believers, the resurrection, when our bodies are raised again. Your not part of that conversation, seriously!? Evolution has a scientific definition and it's not universal common descent.

Indulge an old man whose intuition is apparently failing him. In any case, it was not meant as a rhetorical question.

You do know you are in the creation VS evolution forum right? And you have no idea what the alternation to exclusively naturalistic causes? What's your explanation for the resurrection?

 

[mark kennedy]

In simple terms, mammal evolution was this:

Any questions?

Yes, do you think you could manage a definition you didn't get from a comic book?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Except for the 'what it's do to', that's the definition of evolution.

So I DO know the definition of evolution then.

 

[Speedwell]

Creation is about God creating life, the Gospel is about the translation of believers, the resurrection, when our bodies are raised again. Your not part of that conversation, seriously!? Evolution has a scientific definition and it's not universal common descent.

No, but universal common descent is certainly a reasonable assumption given what we know. What you think that has to do with redemptive history is still not clear to me.

You do know you are in the creation VS evolution forum right? And you have no idea what the alternation to exclusively naturalistic causes?

I don't believe in "exclusively naturalistic causes." God created us, with the theory of evolution being merely an explanation of how that unfolded in the material world. And, as a practical matter, I don't think this is a creation v. evolution forum. It appears to me to be a "biblical" creationism v. evolution forum. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that anyone who accepts evolution and postulates a naturalistic abiogenesis is somehow denying divine creativity. That assumption is true in many cases, but to regard it as universally true is gratuitous and unfounded, especially when imputed to a fellow Christian.

What's your explanation for the resurrection?

It was a miracle, or more particularly in my church tradition, a Sacred Mystery.

 

[mark kennedy]

So I DO know the definition of evolution then.

So I DO know the definition of evolution then.

You appear to be the only one willing to admit to it and I haven't seen you contradict the erroneous definitions yet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You appear to be the only one willing to admit to it and I haven't seen you contradict the erroneous definitions yet.

But no-one else has given you erroneous definitions of evolution. Only definitions that you don't like.
And you STILL haven't shown me where I insulted your religion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

its easy. we have 2 possibilities: mammals created in another geological time,

Ok, that is the progressive creation position. Is that what you believe? Do you think that God created the first mammal like reptiles about 300 million years ago, and then incrementally created things closer and closer to mammals until he finally created the first placental mammal about 80 million years ago? Is so, why does it take your God so many tries to get it right?

or just dont left any fossil in this period. remember also that there is much more species of reptiles then mammals. so there is more chance that we will find first a reptile fossil and then mammal one.

Ah, the one mammal fossil we found might just so happen to be in one of the upper layers.

Wait, what? We found many more than just one mammal fossil. We found tens of thousands. And we found more than just one ancient reptile fossil. We found many thousands older than 300 million years. So how credible is the explanation that mammals existed for hundreds of millions of years without leaving a single fossil, while leaving many fossils in the last 80 million years?

And why are the intermediates in a place where we would expect them from evolution?

this is because they all belong to the same family- eupleridae. so they may indeed have a common ancestor. but actually some morphological evidences point to the opposite direction:

Fossa (animal) - Wikipedia

"However, in 1995, Veron's morphological study once again grouped it with Felidae"

Ah, so you recognize that the fossa, the civet and the various mongoose species all may have had a common ancestor. Scientists think this ancestor arrived in Madagascar 20 million years ago. Is this what you are saying, that all these creatures evolved from one ancestor over 20 million years ?See List of mammals of Madagascar - Wikipedia

If this much evolution can happen in 20 million years, imagine what would happen in 200 million years or 2 billion years.

true. first: what about fossils in the wrong order? if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. dont you think?

Sure, bring on the evidence for your claim.

When you made this claim before, we asked you about out of order fossils. All you could come up with is one fossil that appears to have fallen down a hole into an older layer. Do you have an example of a fossil that appears to have lived far out of the range that scientists date it at?

secondly- as far as i know cars was invented first. then a commercial one and then a truck. so they also appeared in the correct order.

Of course. Cars started out simple and developed as engineers learned from past experience. Digging through a junk yard, you might find cars came into the yard in the order shown in the picture below. That is because cars came into existence in that order.

Again, do you agree that animals came into existence in the order I reported from the fossil record, starting with ancient reptiles and advancing through many intermediates until they reached mammals? Giving an example of cars, which also went form simple to complex with time is not a denial of the claim. Do you agree that animals advanced through the years, just as cars did in your favorite example?

So first, can you agree that there were transitionals introduced from reptile to mammal as time progressed, just like the Model T and the Fordor were intermediates between the Model A and the Mustang?

If you agree that animals advanced through time, just as cars advanced through time, then the only question is whether they evolved that way, or if there were thousands of individual creation events.