Are there transitional fossils?

[xianghua]

Lo and behold, that exactly what we find in the fossil record.
Some of these fossils have even been found by prediction.

its funny because in many cases we cant find such hierarchy. when this happen they just call it convergent evolution. for instance: the appendix is appeare in some species but not in the species bweteen them. so its a non-hierarchy. so scientists claiming that the appendix evolved at least 18 times convergently because the appendix phylogeny show a non-hierarchy. so you cant claim that hierarchy is evidence for evolution and in the same time that a non-hierarchy is also evidence for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

What is the design model?

i actually refering to the speciel creation model. its means that creatures arent evolved from each other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

yes they do, but they dont prove any evolution. how many times i need to say this?

Proof is for math, evidence is for science. The fossil record is but a part of the vast amount of evidence supporting evolution. It's not even close to the best evidence, genetics covers that. However, finding fossils that contradict the evolutionary models derived from the theory would still have the possibility of disproving the theory.

yes i have. i said that different creatures arent evolved from each other because we dont have any scientific proof that its possible.

Bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than we do, and we observe new species and genera of bacteria come into existence all the time. We literally watch it happen.

another argument against this transition are the ic systems that we can find between the creatures. for instance: the melon organ in whales need at least several parts to be a functional. so it cant evolve stepwise. a motion system need at least several parts to its minimal function. so it cant evolve stepwise and so on.

You are assuming that it had to have the same function at every step, which is not true. You are assuming it could only have one function at a time, which is not true. You are assuming that at every "step", only one physiological change can occur at a time, which is not true. And worst of all, your statement is actually wrong, especially in regards to the evolution of single celled organisms, in which single mutations frequently result in huge physiological changes. You are also acting as if natural selection cannot promote traits without significant function. Consider linked genes: a gene for red hair is very close to a gene for resisting a pathogen. When that pathogen decimates a population, most of the people that survive happen to have red hair, and only because the gene for red hair and the gene for the pathogen resistance happened to be close together on the same chromosome, not because the red hair itself had any advantages or notable function.

so what? we can also find such an order in vehicles too: a car--> a fighter jet--> a space shuttle. but again: it doesnt prove any evolution but a design.

-_- but cars have little to no relationship to planes, and planes are structurally entirely different from space shuttles. There's no transition from cars to planes, planes were not made using car designs, they are actually mostly designed after BIRDS and other living organisms.

i already show to you a fossil that is in the wrong place by about 30my. so its like finding an ape fossil that is date about 60my. if this is not a fossil in the wrong place then any fossil cant be in the wrong place. so in this case any claim about a wrong place fossil is meaningless.

Define "wrong place", exactly. The fossil record as it relates to evolution is a matter of order more than time. Being out of order is more devastating than being later or early.
D oe s th e meaning o f this sen t en ce changewith mor e or less space s? Or does swapping the order of the words devastate the meaning more, such as with this version of the sentence:
The sentence does space more or less of this change with meaning?
The fossil record has to maintain a degree of order, but a few million years off on predictions as to where certain fossils with certain traits should be found is not a huge issue, especially the farther back into history we go. That is, the degree of error on predicting what sort of traits should be found in fossils of certain ages increases with how far back we are going. Thankfully, our own species is rather young, so we can trace our evolution back with errors in thousands of years rather than millions. So, finding a human fossil 30 million years older than predicted is far more devastating than finding a fossil organism predicted to have lived 200 million years ago and dating it at 230 million years old.

 

[USincognito]

yes they do, but they dont prove any evolution. how many times i need to say this?

Apparently fewer times than we need to you there's no such thing as scientific proof and science doesn't prove anything.

 

[USincognito]

for instance: the appendix is appeare in some species but not in the species bweteen them. so its a non-hierarchy. so scientists claiming that the appendix evolved at least 18 times .

Citation?

 

[USincognito]

i do you know for sure? maybe its happened before they even formed?

And maybe automobiles secretly have babies making their analogy to living things valid.

 

[doubtingmerle]

another argument against this transition are the ic systems that we can find between the creatures. for instance: the melon organ in whales need at least several parts to be a functional. so it cant evolve stepwise. a motion system need at least several parts to its minimal function. so it cant evolve stepwise and so on.

...so therefore whales just suddenly popped into existence?

Once more, popping into existence is a complete violation of the laws of nature, such as the law of conservation of matter. Your method of creation is impossible, unless of course, you postulate a God who does impossible things. But if you postulate a God who does impossible things, then you have totally defeated your argument that whale evolution is impossible. Suppose you would prove whale evolution cannot naturally occur. If your God is powerful enough to make whales pop into existence out of nothing, then why cannot he evolve a whale from a creature that is very much like a whale? Yet somehow you insist that evolving a whale is impossible for your God, while popping into existence is possible. How do you know that? How could you possibly know that?

Read up about evolution. Evolution does not require several things to happen at once. Rather, what happens, is that mutations cause variations in animals, often in ways that are odd or even a liability in the current environment. But with many variations out there, and with the genes shuffling as animals breed, a fortuitous combination of neutral variations can occur that is actually favored by evolution in a certain situation. So we are not even dealing with something impossible when we speak of evolution producing something new. We are dealing with something that is known to happen.

But even if it were impossible for random mutations to create things, that does not prove that God used the "popping out of nowhere" method instead of the evolution method to create.

so what? we can also find such an order in vehicles too: a car--> a fighter jet--> a space shuttle. but again: it doesnt prove any evolution but a design.

We also find order in things like the Ford Mustang, which in a very real sense evolved. The drawings on which the car was built are very analogous to DNA, and the drawings for the Ford Mustang evolved with time. Each year the cars copied some of the Mustang DNA (the drawings), modified some of the DNA, and had some brand new DNA. And the factories and tooling used to make the Mustangs replicated with changes. So in a very real sense, the tooling and drawings for the '70 Mustang evolved from the tooling and drawings for the '69 Mustang, which evolved from the '68 Mustang, etc. It is hard to look at the Mustang lineage and not recognize that there really was evolution going on here.

And when you acknowledge that the jaw bones of mammal-like reptile grew incrementally more mammal like over time, could it not be that each new species used some of the DNA of an ancestor species to make the modifications it had, rather than start from scratch with brand new DNA for each species?

 

[Jimmy D]

i actually refering to the speciel creation model. its means that creatures arent evolved from each other.

How can that be a model? A scientific model is....

"a representation of an idea, an object or even a process or a system that is used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly. Models are central to what scientists do, both in their research as well as when communicating their explanations."

or

"a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge."

Your "model" is non-existent, futile attempts to poke holes in the theory of evolution is not a model. Your "model" explains nothing, describes nothing and quantifies nothing, it's poor theology and not science. I appreciate you need to make creationism appear credible but lets face it, it's probably not such a good idea to ignore widely accepted scientific facts if you're trying to promote your ideas as scientific.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

its funny because in many cases we cant find such hierarchy.

Strange how evolutionary biologists, who study these things for a living, don't seem to be aware of that.

for instance: the appendix is appeare in some species but not in the species bweteen them. so its a non-hierarchy. so scientists claiming that the appendix evolved at least 18 times convergently because the appendix phylogeny show a non-hierarchy. so you cant claim that hierarchy is evidence for evolution and in the same time that a non-hierarchy is also evidence for evolution.

Citation required.

 

[xianghua]

Strange how evolutionary biologists, who study these things for a living, don't seem to be aware of that.



Citation required.

here:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm

"They mapped the data onto a phylogeny (genetic tree) to track how the appendix has evolved through mammalian evolution, and to try to determine why some species have an appendix while others don't. They discovered that the appendix has evolved independently in several mammal lineages, over 30 separate times, and almost never disappears from a lineage once it has appeared."


its now reach to 30 times. if the appendix phylogeny doesnt fit with the creatures one- its a convergent evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than we do, and we observe new species and genera of bacteria come into existence all the time. We literally watch it happen.

but its still bacteria and not even evolved a new complex trait like a flagellum or a motion system or a light detector.

You are assuming that it had to have the same function at every step, which is not true. You are assuming it could only have one function at a time, which is not true. You are assuming that at every "step", only one physiological change can occur at a time, which is not true

remember the cell-phone argument? we cant just make small changes in a watch and change it into a cell-phone by changing only one part at time or by adding parts.

-_- but cars have little to no relationship to planes, and planes are structurally entirely different from space shuttles. There's no transition from cars to planes, planes were not made using car designs,

actually they do. a an airplane is basically a flying car with wings. the first plane was a kind of a car with a propeller.

Define "wrong place", exactly.

its a good point. i never heared any scienstis that define what is a "wrong place fossil". so its basically a non-scientific term. therefore the claim about wrong place fossil is non-scientific itself.

The fossil record has to maintain a degree of order, but a few million years off on predictions as to where certain fossils with certain traits should be found is not a huge issue, especially the farther back into history we go.

so an ape with a dino fossil isnt a big issue because its onlt about 30my earlier then we thought?

 

[xianghua]

Suppose you would prove whale evolution cannot naturally occur. If your God is powerful enough to make whales pop into existence out of nothing, then why cannot he evolve a whale from a creature that is very much like a whale?

of course its possible if he exist. i never say something else.

So we are not even dealing with something impossible when we speak of evolution producing something new. We are dealing with something that is known to happen.

not realy. if i have a self replicating watch, i will never think it will evolve into a car or even adding to itself a new feature like a timer. those changes need a designer.

And when you acknowledge that the jaw bones of mammal-like reptile grew incrementally more mammal like over time, could it not be that each new species used some of the DNA of an ancestor species to make the modifications it had, rather than start from scratch with brand new DNA for each species?

again: only by a design. not by a natural process. do you believe in a natural evolution or a design one?

 

[pitabread]

not realy. if i have a self replicating watch, i will never think it will evolve into a car or even adding to itself a new feature like a timer. those changes need a designer.

Would you be surprised to learn that an attempt to evolve an electronic oscillator via evolutionary algorithms accidentally resulted in the evolution of a radio receiver instead?

 

[doubtingmerle]

again: only by a design. not by a natural process. do you believe in a natural evolution or a design one?

Wait, my choices are no longer limited to either naturalistic evolution or animals popping into existence out of nothing? Now you offer a choice in the middle, evolution guided by a designer?

Evolution guided by a designer makes more sense than animals popping into existence.

When I look at the forces that have guided evolution, they seem random to me. They don't seem like the work of an intelligence. But I could be wrong.

This thread is about intermediate fossils as a result of macro-evolution. You seem to allow that may have happened, as long as there is a designer guiding the process. So have I proven my point?

 

[xianghua]

Evolution guided by a designer makes more sense than animals popping into existence.

you welcome to believe that.

When I look at the forces that have guided evolution, they seem random to me. They don't seem like the work of an intelligence. But I could be wrong.

so your argument is base on a natural evolution, not a design one.

This thread is about intermediate fossils as a result of macro-evolution. You seem to allow that may have happened, as long as there is a designer guiding the process. So have I proven my point?

proving what actually? you gave those fossils as evidence for a natural evolution. am i correct? if so: the whole argument is fail. unless you are claiming for a theistic evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

not realy. if i have a self replicating watch, i will never think it will evolve into a car or even adding to itself a new feature like a timer. those changes need a designer.

You really need to stop with these silly invalid analogies.

As has been explained to you so many times already... your "analogies" are about as sensible as denying gravity by saying that hammers don't fall down in the ISS.

The fact is that watches do not self-replicate, the don't reproduce with variation, they aren't in competition for limited resources, they aren't engage in a struggle for survival,... in short, they aren't subject to any part of the evolutionary model.

Therefor, holding it up as analogous to things that ARE subject to evolutionary processes, is as non-sensical and meaningless as it gets.

again: only by a design. not by a natural process. do you believe in a natural evolution or a design one?

Evolution is an observable, natural process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so your argument is base on a natural evolution, not a design one.

What would be the difference between the two?
How would you suggest to differentiate one from the other?

What would natural evolution look like and how would "designed" evolution be different?

In short: what reliable test could be performed, to determine one or the other?

proving what actually? you gave those fossils as evidence for a natural evolution.

How would transitional fossils look any different if evolution is a "designed" process as opposed to a "natural" process?

am i correct? if so: the whole argument is fail. unless you are claiming for a theistic evolution.

How would transitional fossils look any different if it is the result of "theistic" evolution instead of natural evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

you welcome to believe that.

And how about you? Do you also believe that theistic evolution makes more sense in light of the available evidence compared with the view that animals popped into existence 6000 years ago? Do you have any evidence that popping into existence is more credible than theistic evolution?

proving what actually? you gave those fossils as evidence for a natural evolution. am i correct? if so: the whole argument is fail. unless you are claiming for a theistic evolution.

I don't see anywhere that the OP mentions that evolution must be without God. The point is that transitional fossils are there, just as evolution predicts.

 

[xianghua]

And how about you? Do you also believe that theistic evolution makes more sense in light of the available evidence compared with the view that animals popped into existence 6000 years ago? Do you have any evidence that popping into existence is more credible than theistic evolution?

to me the answer is yes. its a realy odd design otherwise. and if we can conclude design its realy easy to accept a speciel creation.

The point is that transitional fossils are there, just as evolution predicts.

again; the speciel creation predict that too. do you agree with speciel creation because of that?

 

[xianghua]

The fact is that watches do not self-replicate, the don't reproduce with variation, they aren't in competition for limited resources, they aren't engage in a struggle for survival,... in short, they aren't subject to any part of the evolutionary model.

i actually do talked about a self replicating objects.