Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

Fossilized trees do not extend through millions or even thousands of years of layering. And yes, I know there are pictures that seem to indicate that they do but that is not the factual case.

Don't believe your lying eyes everyone. I think that's a song. So we will ignore it I guess. Add it to the list of ignored observational evidence. That list is getting to be a manuscript in itself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Glitch

 

[Jimmy D]

That and the fact that even they want to claim the genome is 98% junk DNA, because it is degrading from a perfect state with all possible combinations into an imperfect state with fewer and fewer combinations. Just like we see with dogs who's genetic errors build up over time until survivability becomes an issue. They are not becoming more advanced, but more and more restricted to their genetic states.

Degrading from a perfect state? What does that even mean? What differences would we see between the wolf genome and the dog genome?

Why do the dog's genetic errors build up over time?

It sounds like you're making things up.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Basically this is what we're talking about when we talk about variations. This is yet another example that is against the theory of evolution because all these varieties of dogs show how rich the genome was in the original. This is not a "bottom up" evolutionary process but a "top down".

Exactly, and the DNA is becoming more and more prone to error. They are close to running their course of variations.

This is what they refuse to accept, that rich plathora of variation already available in the genome. What man has accelerated would if left to natural causes take longer and there would be fewer breeds.

This is the mistake they make in the fossil record by listing infraspecific taxa as seperate species. If they incorrectly listed those dog infraspecific taxa as seperate species, they would be led to the wrong conclusion about their lineage, believing they were evolving into separate species.

Error after uncorrected error after uncorrected error is the theory of evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Degrading from a perfect state? What does that even mean? What differences would we see between the wolf genome and the dog genome?

Why do the dog's genetic errors build up over time?

It sounds like you're making things up.

It is clear you understand nothing about dog breeding. Every new breed has more and more genetic errors.

Look it up and stop making false claims when clearly you haven't done your research. But that's nothing new for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I don't think the Gray Wolf can time-travel to the future.

Basically what I mean by "top down" is that the Gray Wolf had all the facets that are seen in the vast diversity of dogs we see today. As you "trickle down" the Gray Wolfs features there is a loss of genetic variation. For example the pug has no genetic makeup in it to create a dog with long legs or a big heavy coat. You have to reintroduce that genetic into the pug so it's off-spring has that genetic capability to have long legs and/or a big heavy coat.

This in and of itself shows that there was not a "bottom up" meaning an increase in complexity as the theory of evolution says, but shows there is a loss of genetic variety.

I thought you were referring to the placement of the Grey Wolf in the dog family tree since I'd never heard anyone use "top down" to refer to evolution before.

But the rest of your comment is just asinine. The Newfoundland breed of dog has waterproof fur, while the Grey Wolf does not. So is that it a loss of information or not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And yet we do not find bones of fishes, or any other animal for that matter sinking to the bottom and beginning the process of fossilization. They must be buried rapidly to prevent decay. Go test that for yourself, go dig in any river bed, lake, or ocean and you won't find but maybe a scrap or two of bone left from those that recently died. The rest will have decomposed away. So again, yes it is a problem for you, if you accept the reality of actual observations of the real world and don't ignore them.

Do you now how rare it is for an animal's remains to become fossils? Very.
Don't act like you've won some big victory by using that well known fact to support your own baseless and evidenceless claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you now how rare it is for an animal's remains to become fossils? Very.
Don't act like you've won some big victory by using that well known fact to support your own baseless and evidenceless claims.

Don't get all uptight because you can't refute the evidence.

I know exactly how rare it is for an animal to become fossilized, which is why since we have unearthed "billions" of fossils, millions of which are found in each strata, there is no conclusion but that it was a worldwide catastrophic flood. Local floods would not have killed off and entombed the same animals worldwide in such vast numbers to preserve the billions of fossils we have. Accept the evidence, it's ok, really it is to accept the actual evidence for what it says.

No evidence? I have an entire living world of billions of infraspecific taxa in the species. What do you guys have? A fossil classification system that has not a single one and is divorced from reality. I got an entire world of observational evidence concerning infraspecific taxa. What do you guys have? Uhh well it's wrong.

So let's see, actual observational data versus claims it's wrong, oh my, which do we choose?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't get all uptight because you can't refute the evidence.

I know exactly how rare it is for an animal to become fossilized, which is why since we have unearthed "billions" of fossils, millions of which are found in each strata, there is no conclusion that it was a worldwide catastrophic flood. Local floods would not have killed off and entombed the same animals worldwide in such vast numbers to preserve the billions of fossils we have. Accept the evidence, it's ok, really it is to accept the actual evidence for what it says.

But you haven't put forth any evidence. All you have done is go "I say it's right because I say so". That's what I'm getting 'uptight' about.
You have NEVER ONCE given any link for evidence to support your claim that we have found billions of fossils. And if we have, SO WHAT? How many species of animals have lived throughout Earth's history? Probably billions upon billions. TRILLIONS even.
And since you enjoy things being repeated ad nausieum so much, try this on for size: THERE HAS NEVER BEEN NOR WILL THERE BE EVIDENCE FOR A WORLDWIDE FLOOD IN THE LAST 10,000 YEARS.

Drop the snarky, arrogant, un-Christian attitude for once in your life in this forum and try to act like a decent human being in a discussion.
If you have evidence, show it to us. Don't say you're right because you say so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you haven't put forth any evidence. All you have done is go "I say it's right because I say so". That's what I'm getting 'uptight' about.
You have NEVER ONCE given any link for evidence to support your claim that we have found billions of fossils. And if we have, SO WHAT? How many species of animals have lived throughout Earth's history? Probably billions upon billions. TRILLIONS even.
And since you enjoy things being repeated ad nausieum so much, try this on for size: THERE HAS NEVER BEEN NOR WILL THERE BE EVIDENCE FOR A WORLDWIDE FLOOD IN THE LAST 10,000 YEARS.

Drop the snarky, arrogant, un-Christian attitude for once in your life in this forum and try to act like a decent human being in a discussion.
If you have evidence, show it to us. Don't say you're right because you say so.

I've got an entire world of infraspecific taxa in the species. Everyone knows this, and knows the fossil record is divorced from reality because it contains none.

Where do you want to start? Asians, African or Latinos for example? Husky, Mastif or Poodle? We can list several infraspecific taxa for every species in existence today.

Sadly it is you that can't list a single one in the fossil record, because they have been incorrectly labeled as seperate species. The very fact you can't list a single one shows how separated from reality the fossil classification is. If it were accurate it would match observational evidence.

The fact your trying so hard to convince yourself it's not true, when all one needs do is open their eyes, just shows how important it really is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've got an entire world of infraspecific taxa in the species. Everyone knows this, and knows the fossil record is muscles sided because it contains none.

Where do you want to start? Asians, African or Latinos for example? Husky, Mastif or Poodle? We can list several infraspecific taxa for every species in existence today.

Sadly it is you that can't list a single one in the fossil record, because they have been incorrectly labeled as seperate species. The very fact you can't list a single one shows how separated from reality the fossil classification is. If it were accurate it would match observational evidence.

The fact your trying so hard to convince yourself it's not true, when all one needs do is open their eyes, just shows how important it really is.

I don't care about dogs or humans. We're talking about fossils and the claims that you keep making but present ZERO evidence for.
Do you not understand what I am saying to you? If you make a claim, you have to present evidence for it!

 

[pshun2404]

An ancient fully avian fossil predating Archae was found in Texas so they named it Proto-Avis so they could still claim Archae was "transitional". But simple logic tells us that if Archae was transitional between and reptiles and avians then avians would have had to come after, not before. The transitional cannot follow that which already exists. One cannot be born BEFORE their great grandparent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An ancient fully avian fossil predating Archae was found in Texas so they named it Proto-Avis so they could still claim Archae was "transitional". But simple logic tells us that if Archae was transitional between and reptiles and avians then avians would have had to come after, not before. The transitional cannot follow that which already exists. One cannot be born BEFORE their great grandparent.

Evidence for this discovery? And why are they wrong? Can you look through the history of language and clearly point out when the first Latin speaker became the first Italian speaker?

 

[pshun2404]

Evidence for this discovery? And why are they wrong? Can you look through the history of language and clearly point out when the first Latin speaker became the first Italian speaker?

Wow!! Talk about major category errors. Transitional: in between two sages one leading into the other; to transition, a movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage,subject, concept, etc., TO ANOTHER.

Now some modern Evolutionary Biologists seeing this problem with excuses like Archae or Tiltaalik (tetrapods already existed long before Tilt) have slowly tried to change the meaning of this commonly understood word to include when something has anatomical characteristics SIMILAR to both creatures, but homology is NOT science, it is a way humans intelligently classify.

a) similarity does not necessitate a linear relationship
b) because two things share characteristics in common does not mean one came from the other (they just have genes that produce these forms in each of the two separate creatures)

For ProtoAvis evidence try...

"Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 332: 277-342, OR

The Origin and Evolution of Birds (2nd ed.), A. Feduccia (1999), Yale University Press, New Haven, OR

"Skull of Protoavis and Early Evolution of Birds." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 7(3)(Suppl.): 14A

Or more simply just google it

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow!! Talk about major category errors. Try...

"Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 332: 277-342, OR

The Origin and Evolution of Birds (2nd ed.), A. Feduccia (1999), Yale University Press, New Haven, OR

"Skull of Protoavis and Early Evolution of Birds." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 7(3)(Suppl.): 14A
Or more simply just google it

And how does showing that there is an earlier transitional link the evolution of avians and reptiles hurt evolution?

 

[RickG]

Your own biologists, had you bothered to do any actual research.

How many fossils have been found? (Page 1) - Fossils - Ask a Biologist Q&A

Of course my answer of 400 million was from the early 80's. Guess I should of done my research and said billions instead.....

I think his context is misunderstood. I could hand you a piece of limestone the size of my hand it would contain millions of actual fossils. The same is true with other marine fossil conglomerates. Again context, how many individual vertebrate fossils are there in museums? No where near that number.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you haven't put forth any evidence. All you have done is go "I say it's right because I say so". That's what I'm getting 'uptight' about.

You got an entire living world with infraspecific taxa in every species. Just how much is enough?

You have NEVER ONCE given any link for evidence to support your claim that we have found billions of fossils. And if we have, SO WHAT? How many species of animals have lived throughout Earth's history? Probably billions upon billions. TRILLIONS even.

best go back an reread. Just goes to show how much you ignore whatever doesn't fit your beliefs.

And since you enjoy things being repeated ad nausieum so much, try this on for size: THERE HAS NEVER BEEN NOR WILL THERE BE EVIDENCE FOR A WORLDWIDE FLOOD IN THE LAST 10,000 YEARS.

Says the man that refuses to accept an entire living world of infraspecific taxa in every species to save his garbage fossil classifications.

Drop the snarky, arrogant, un-Christian attitude for once in your life in this forum and try to act like a decent human being in a discussion.
If you have evidence, show it to us. Don't say you're right because you say so.

Says the man that can't make a single post without insulting people. Your one to talk. But ill fight fire with fire. Don't like it quit playing the game, you get what you give. Notice in some posts I am quite civil, because they are. Come at me with an attitude and you'll get it right back. Look in the mirror, my snarky attitude is but a reflection of yourself.

Open your eyes, you'll see infraspecific taxa in every species. Do I need to go over it again and again? Asian, African, Latino for example. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle... And the list goes on for every species that exists.

Your just mad because you know I am right and have no counter except to keep ignoring it. It's evolutionists Achilles heel, and that arrow pierces through.

 

[pshun2404]

Evidence for this discovery? And why are they wrong? Can you look through the history of language and clearly point out when the first Latin speaker became the first Italian speaker?

No I cannot, but I can tell you that people already spoke other dialects of Italian when the Romans took over...Latin is based a dialect from the Tiber river Valley and according to philologists was influenced by a few sources (even Celtic and Greek) before it became what we call Latin (many other indigenous Italians had to learn THIS Latin around 1000 bc).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You got an entire living world with infraspecific taxa in every species. Just how much is enough?

best go back an reread. Just goes to show how much you ignore whatever doesn't fit your beliefs.


Says the man that refuses to accept an entire living world of infraspecific taxa in every species to save his garbage fossil classifications.


Says the man that can't make a single post without insulting people. Your one to talk.

Open your eyes, you'll see infraspecific taxa in every species. Do I need to go over it again and again? Asian, African, Latino for example. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle... And the list goes on for every species that exists.

Your just mad because you know I am right and have no counter except to keep ignoring it. It's evolutionists Achilles heel, and that arrow pierces through.

I ignore the infraspecific taxa because all you ever say about it is "I am right because I say I'm right." How are you not getting this?
You simply saying that you are right does not mean that you ARE right. You have not once presented any evidence for anything you have said and you continually ignore any calls for you to give evidence.
The only one coming up with garbage classifications and insults is you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I cannot, but I can tell you that people already spoke other dialects of Italian when the Romans took over...Latin is based a dialect from the Tiber river Valley and according to philologists was influenced by a few sources (even Celtic and Greek) before it became what we call Latin (many other indigenous Italians had to learn THIS Latin around 1000 bc).

But those languages weren't Italian. They were the Celtic languages of Italy, but not Italian. Just like how no-one in England at the same time as the Roman Empire spoke English but spoke Celtic.
And you didn't answer my question: Can you look through the history of language and clearly point out when the first Latin speaker became the first Italian speaker?