Are there transitional fossils?

[mark kennedy]

Come now. You should know as well as anyone that in order to be a creationist (particularly a Young-Earth creationist), one needs to reject various findings and conclusions of cosmology/astronomy, geology, paleontology, physics, biology, and human history/archaeology.

I've seen no such barrier, first of all what Scripture tells us about the creation of the universe, 'the heavens and the earth', is that it was, 'in the beginning', which could have been 6000 years ago or 20 billion. There is virtually nothing about astronomy, cosmology and certainly nothing about physics. It's clear from the Genesis account of creation that God 'created', the universe (Gen. 1:1), life in general (Gen. 1:21) and man in particular (Gen. 1:27) in no uncertain terms about 6000 years ago. My experience is that archaeology confirms much about Scripture but still remains a secondary source. Biology is more about living systems then it ever was about dead ancestors and paleontology is perfectly consistent with what I would expect from the fossil record. I don't see any real problem.

This is especially true of the Noah's Ark scenario in particular and the idea that somehow the entirety of biodiversity of life on Earth is the result of 8 people and a bunch of animals stepping off a boat ~4000 years ago. Not only does this blatantly contradict the aforementioned disciplines, but it's especially egregious with respect to human history given the existence and continuance of various civilizations during this alleged event.

I happen to think the dating conventions are flawed in a number of ways but not that far off. The tendency to move the dates of the event in Scripture to the right has proven, at least in my mind, to be utterly subjective. The oldest civilization was Egypt, there were no significant building projects on that scale previously and that was no more then 10,000 years ago. Civilization marches from their through the Middle East to find it's centers in Greece, Rome and a migration through northern Europe into Asia and across Central Asia into India. This suggest a migration pattern from eastern Turkey radiating out in all directions from Ararat. You are welcome to interpret the evidence as you see fit but I reserve the right to do the same.

Why do you keep creating the dichotomy between creationism and atheism? Lots of theists reject modern creationism (specifically YEC and OEC), but are still theists that apparently believe in a deity as an originator of the universe, including many Christians.

I have no such dichotomy, the Scriptures are clear, you either believe them or you don't.

"Divine providence" effectively explains nothing. The minute you reach for the supernatural, you're inserting an unbounded explanation that can be used to answer anything and everything. In fact this is basically required by creationists to assert the Noah's Ark scenario since it violates practically everything we otherwise know. It just becomes one long series of *insert miracle here*.

I didn't decide to participate in this thread to convince you of anything, I'm here to talk about transitional fossils. I'm telling you that starting of with pristine genomes could account for extraordinary adaptive radiation on an epic scale resulting in the biodiversity we see today. If that runs contrary to your worldview that's not my problem.

This is why I referenced Last Thursdayism earlier. You appear to have created an inherently unfalsifiable position (philosophically speaking) and one which effectively runs into a brick wall as far as discussion goes.

Darwinism is the unfalsifiable position since it never admits the inverse logic that remains intuitively obvious. More clutch phrases and generalities. What is more I've always been open to a discussion of transitional fossils and have suggested Paranthropus is the key transitional with regards to human origins, so far, no takers. I've studied the work of the Leakys, Dart, Keith and read a considerable amount of scientific and Darwinian literature on the subject. An actual discussion of paleontology in these forums is relatively rare but invariably when I participate in these discussions I learn more and more about the subject.

You want to talk about transitionals bring it on, you don't then what are you doing here? I only ask because your arguments are getting bogged down with this fallacious rhetoric that I know for a fact will do nothing but reduce your arguments to dwindling returns. Seen it too many times.

You guys are a hoot, the moderators did a great job cleaning up this forum.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You mean horse pictures, that's what I'm getting from you

Uh, you agree that the modern horse evolved from the Hyracotherium, or a close relative of it?

I have not only shown pictures of horses, but also of many other transitionals. And for good measure, here are some more transitionals:

And no, none of those are horses.

while the paranthropus and other actual ape fossils have yet to draw a single substantive remark.

As you know, unlike you, I have a limited time to spend here. Just like on other threads, you therefore claim victory, which is total nonsense.

I simply do no have time to respond to every word ever written on this forum. If that means you win, fine, you win.

Hominid fossils have yet to enter the conversation and the only transition I see was from the Pildown fraud to the stone age handyman myth.

Perhaps you have not been looking hard enough:

How is that?

Cats, dogs and horses aren't exactly crucial nodes in adaptive evolution, the giant leap in cranial capacity is.

Uh, yes, but I have been talking about the transitional fossils from a microbe to a horse. The difference between the intelligence of a bacteria to a horse is huge.

Creation is a series of event during the span of six days where the parental forms of all living creatures originated, Adam pass and reviewed all of that, naming each in a days time.

And when did creation happen? Multi-celled creatures have been around since before the Cambrian (541 million years ago). Is that when your six day creation happened? If not, how can we find all those fossils hundreds of millions of years before your creation?

Noah emerges from the Ark with the ancestral common ancestors of all mammals, reptiles and birds 4000 years ago resulting in 2 to 60 million descendant species today.

There are 42 species of cat alive today. How many pairs of cats do you think Noah took on the ark? 1? 10? 42? Can you give me an approximate answer?

Do you really think I as a creationist have a problem with variations of dogs, cats and horses?

You are skipping the real issue: the transitionals that show that fish evolved into amphibians that evolved into reptiles that evolved into mammals. You just ignore that.

The only transition that is in conflict with the doctrine of creation are the ones passed of as our ancestors.

Mammal-like reptiles are thought to be our ancestors too. Why do you ignore them?

Can you explain what fossils and why I should care about these random generalities

Here for instance is the story of vertebrate ancestors from the Cambrian. Fossil Record of the Vertebrates

And I have shown by actual source material that biological evolution is not one thing but two.

The word "evolution" can have many meanings. Different people use the word different ways. Here is what Webster says:

Definition of evolution
1: one of a set of prescribed movements

2a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfoldingb : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emissionc (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advanced : something evolved

3: the process of working out or developing

4a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations. Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality. — Stephen Jay Gould; also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution. — Nature. In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. — Pamela Weintraubb : the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) : phylogeny

5: the extraction of a mathematical root

6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
​

So can you end this silly charade claiming two and only two fixed definitions of evolution?

Now I suppose in your world it's perfectly permissible to assign meaning at will and at random but scientific definitions for evolution are consistent and precise.

Poor Webster. If what you say is true, why does the dictionary say there are many meanings?

 

[pitabread]

've seen no such barrier, first of all what Scripture tells us about the creation of the universe, 'the heavens and the earth', is that it was, 'in the beginning', which could have been 6000 years ago or 20 billion. There is virtually nothing about astronomy, cosmology and certainly nothing about physics. It's clear from the Genesis account of creation that God 'created', the universe (Gen. 1:1), life in general (Gen. 1:21) and man in particular (Gen. 1:27) in no uncertain terms about 6000 years ago.

So you're okay with the idea that the universe is ~13 billion years old, the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, that homo sapiens have been around ~200,000 years or so, and that Noah's flood never took place (insofar as a worldwide global flood wiping out all of civilization)?

Just trying to understand what you actually believe here.

I'm telling you that starting of with pristine genomes

And what exactly is a "pristine genome"?

Darwinism is the unfalsifiable position since it never admits the inverse logic that remains intuitively obvious.

I have no idea what "Darwinism" is supposed to mean in this context.

You want to talk about transitionals bring it on, you don't then what are you doing here?

Came back to this forum after a decade or so absence. Wanted to see if anything had changed. Have seen that it hasn't, except there appear to be fewer folks these days.

 

[mark kennedy]

Uh, you agree that the modern horse evolved from the Hyracotherium, or a close relative of it?

No idea, I would have to know more about the fossils.

I have not only shown pictures of horses, but also of many other transitionals. And for good measure, here are some more transitionals:

My honest opinion, some interesting artwork, that's about it because that's all you got.

As you know, unlike you, I have a limited time to spend here. Just like on other threads, you therefore claim victory, which is total nonsense.

I check on a forum I'm watching several times a day and I can't remember the last time it took me more then a half an hour to respond to a post. This is a pass time, not time intensive from my end.

I simply do no have time to respond to every word ever written on this forum. If that means you win, fine, you win.

Never considered it a contest, at least not much of one.

Perhaps you have not been looking hard enough:

How is that?

A. garhi measures 450cc, the same size as other australopithecines is supposedly the only one in the chart proceeding Homo habilis (handy man), probably because he was discovered by a Leaky and allegedly used tools. Australopithecus (A.) africanus A. robustus A. boisei (Paranthropus boisei) A aethiopicus Kenyanthropus platyops 450cc h rudolflensis 500cc +?, are all, ‘southern apes’, that are not in our lineage. Notice the dead ends in the chart.

I've addressed a number of these repeatedly and if we ever get to Homo habilis I can dump a truck.

And when did creation happen? Multi-celled creatures have been around since before the Cambrian (541 million years ago). Is that when your six day creation happened? If not, how can we find all those fossils hundreds of millions of years before your creation?

Creation week happened about 6000 years ago and we didn't 'find them', hundreds of millions of years ago the fossil bed was given that date. The surrounding fossil bed my well be that old but life itself didn't start until about 6000 years ago. You do know I'm a Creationist right?

There are 42 species of cat alive today. How many pairs of cats do you think Noah took on the ark? 1? 10? 42? Can you give me an approximate answer?

Unfortunately Noah didn't keep that information for us, nor did Moses. There were at least two the cat's ancestors on board. Still a Creationist here, in case you didn't know we consider radiometric dating to be highly dubious at best. (Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, AIG Dr. Andrew Snelling)

You are skipping the real issue: the transitionals that show that fish evolved into amphibians that evolved into reptiles that evolved into mammals. You just ignore that.

All I'm seeing is a few pictures and some dubious dating techniques.

Mammal-like reptiles are thought to be our ancestors too. Why do you ignore them?

I don't ignore them, I dismiss them.

Here for instance is the story of vertebrate ancestors from the Cambrian. Fossil Record of the Vertebrates

I like the Berkley site, I've enjoyed looking around there for years. That's just a few paragraphs I find largely unconvincing. I prefer primary source material.

The word "evolution" can have many meanings. Different people use the word different ways. Here is what Webster says:

I see you cut and pasted the Merriam-Webster definition, it starts with a literal definition of the meaning of the word:

Definition of evolution

1: one of a set of prescribed movements

2a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfoldingb : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emissionc (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advanced : something evolved

3: the process of working out or developing​

Perfectly consistent with what I've been saying but obviously, we are talking about how it's used in Evolutionary Biology. I've been saying, 'evolution', in that context is not one thing but two things. It's the change of alleles in populations over time and the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. This definition is perfectly consistent with that:

4a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.

​

Perfectly consistent with the definitions I have posted previously. The Genetic Defintion:

• (1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (Biology Online)
• a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift. (Thefreedictionary.com)
• in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation. (PBS, Evolution Library, Glossary)

Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality. — Stephen Jay Gould; also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution. — Nature. In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. — Pamela Weintraubb : the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) : phylogeny

The Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent:

• (2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.(Biology Online)
• all life on earth originates from a common ancestor, which is referred to as the last universal common ancestor, some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. (Thefreedictionary.com)
• In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; (PBS, Evolution Library, Glossary)

5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Irrelevant to our discussion.

So can you end this silly charade claiming two and only two fixed definitions of evolution?

You simply posted another definition saying about the same thing I've been telling you all along, it's not one thing it's two.

Poor Webster. If what you say is true, why does the dictionary say there are many meanings?

Two things you seem to be missing, one I'm a Creationist, two we are talking about evolutionary biology.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

So you're okay with the idea that the universe is ~13 billion years old, the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, that homo sapiens have been around ~200,000 years or so, and that Noah's flood never took place (insofar as a worldwide global flood wiping out all of civilization)?

Just trying to understand what you actually believe here.

First of all I'm a Creationist so creation week happened 6000 years ago and the flood happened 4000 years ago. The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation, the point of Genesis 1 is the creation of life.

And what exactly is a "pristine genome"?

Few, if any cumulative mutations and virtually no speciation due to bottlenecks.

I have no idea what "Darwinism" is supposed to mean in this context.

The meaning doesn't change with me, it's the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. God is catagorically and unconditionally rejected as the cause of anything in the physical or living history of this planet.

Came back to this forum after a decade or so absence. Wanted to see if anything had changed. Have seen that it hasn't, except there appear to be fewer folks these days.

It has thinned out since the Culture Wars faded away. The issues are the same, there's just a lot fewer posters haunting the forums.

 

[Gene2memE]

First of all I'm a Creationist so creation week happened 6000 years ago and the flood happened 4000 years ago.

That must have been a shock to all those civilizations in the Middle East, Northern Africa, the Mediterranean and Central and Eastern Asia that sailed right through that 2000 BC period without any apparent interruption.

 

[pitabread]

First of all I'm a Creationist so creation week happened 6000 years ago and the flood happened 4000 years ago.

Do you believe that life on Earth is only 6000 years old then? Do you believe that the flood was a global event that wiped out all terrestrial life (save for Noah's boat) and all human civilization at the time? Do you believe that all of the Earth's current biodiversity is the result of a comparatively tiny population of individual species which came off a boat 4000 year ago?

Few, if any cumulative mutations and virtually no speciation due to bottlenecks.

This doesn't answer the question. What does a "pristine genome" look like? What does a genome with "few, if any cumulative mutations " look like?

The meaning doesn't change with me, it's the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. God is catagorically and unconditionally rejected as the cause of anything in the physical or living history of this planet.

So Darwinism = metaphysical atheism (or possibly some variants thereof)

From now on whenever I see you write "Darwinism", I'm just going to mentally substitute "atheism". It will make a lot more sense that way.

 

[pitabread]

That must have been a shock to all those civilizations in the Middle East, Northern Africa, the Mediterranean and Central and Eastern Asia that sailed right through that 2000 BC period without any apparent interruption.

Human archaeology is one of the most damning lines of knowledge which falsifies Noah's flood insofar as being a global flood taking place ~4000 years ago. Yet the professional creationists response (i.e. AiG, et al) is basically, "well, human archaeology is wrong then". Yet those same creationists will happily cling to any archaeological finds they feel supports their own beliefs.

It's one of the most blatant examples of confirmation bias I've seen out of creationist organizations. I also feel its incredibly disrespectful to the various cultures which pre-date the supposed flood and still exist today.

 

[mark kennedy]

That must have been a shock to all those civilizations in the Middle East, Northern Africa, the Mediterranean and Central and Eastern Asia that sailed right through that 2000 BC period without any apparent interruption.

No the dates are just wrong

 

[xianghua]

Xianghua, do you even have a position to defend? Because when I ask you what you believe, you just seem to be saying all these things are possibilities. If you allow all sorts of other ideas to be possibilities, why don't you allow evolution as a possibility also?

basically because we dont have a scientific evidence that evolution is true.

Interesting find. So there may be vertebrate tracks on land 395 million years ago, sooner than the 387 million year date traditionally believed? I hear the jury is still out on this. It could well be that we need to push the date of early land walkers back a bit. The transitionals we found would then just be more distant cousins of the true transitionals. But as I explained before, the animals we find usually are not the exact species that made the transition, but descendant species of the transitionals. So there are several possibilities here: a) animals like Tiktaalik are just descendents about 20 million years after the true transitionals, b) the tracks found 395 million years ago have another explanation, or c) the animals that made the tracks found 18 million years earlier were another evolutionary line, that later was overcome by the different line of land walkers represented by Tiktaalik.

now you can see why evolution isnt a scientific theory. we can claim everything that will not falsified the theory. even if we will find a human fossil with a dino one its ok with evolution.

Are you even trying to read what I write? Because I wrote in detail that the fact that we find transitionals would not by itself prove evolution. I even included the chart of Ford cars and mentioned the transitional cars without evolution. But you just ignore all that, and pretend you are telling me something I don't know. But you are just repeating what I said. Why do you do this?

sorry. maybe i missed this part, my mystake.

Uh no, we don't have any good evidence the earth is young. Those arguments have been defeated long ago. But if you wish, we could take that topic up in another thread

lets take one example: according to the scientific data DNA cant survive more then a my at max. so how you will explain that we found a suppose 20my DNA?

 

[pitabread]

now you can see why evolution isnt a scientific theory. we can claim everything that will not falsified the theory. even if we will find a human fossil with a dino one its ok with evolution.

Pushing out the timeline for the evolution of vertebrates by about 2% is a far cry from something like finding a human skeleton fossilized alongside a 65+ million year-old dinosaur.

 

[xianghua]

Pushing out the timeline for the evolution of vertebrates by about 2% is a far cry from something like finding a human skeleton fossilized alongside a 65+ million year-old dinosaur.

so we cant push back a species by a 50 my?

 

[DarthNeo]

NOPE...

And there is NO observable evidence for evolution or change of kind, it has to be taken on faith...smirk.

 

[pitabread]

so we cant push back a species by a 50 my?

That's not what I said. I'm saying you're comparing apples and grapefruits.

Take some time and think about it.

 

[pitabread]

NOPE...

And there is NO observable evidence for evolution or change of kind, it has to be taken on faith...smirk.

Sarcasm? Can't tell.

 

[DarthNeo]

Sarcasm? Can't tell.

No, I am smirking because evolution takes as much faith (actually more) to believe than Intelligent Design...

 

[pitabread]

No, I am smirking because evolution takes as much faith (actually more) to believe than Intelligent Design...

Ah. Well have fun with that.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I am smirking because evolution takes as much faith (actually more) to believe than Intelligent Design...

Part of the problem is that what your calling evolution I'd Darwinian naturalistic assumption. The scientific definition is normative adaptation, the Mendelian laws of inheritance are scientic laws indicating boundries beyond which things cannot evolve. See my signiture.

 

[Skreeper]

No, I am smirking because evolution takes as much faith (actually more) to believe than Intelligent Design...

I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and I don't need faith for that.

Why exactly do you reject it? Is there a specific part you wish to discuss?

 

[DarthNeo]

I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and I don't need faith for that.

Why exactly do you reject it? Is there a specific part you wish to discuss?

I'm a Christian and a creationist/intelligent design...God made EVERYTHING