Are there transitional fossils?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So all impression based fossils should be re-classified as "Supposed" fossils, right? And yes I agree "supposed" or "we believe that" or "joe expert said" does not equal IS...I agree...but it is you who said "Supposed" not the scientists who found these or those who researched them.

I do not know if you know, but some had toe impressions as well...thus they were definitely foot tracks, and are scientists on your side could tell from the gait that the creature was a four footed creature (hence Tetra-pod).

So I guess you didn't see the paper that astrophile linked to in post #938, a paper by Spencer G. Lucas, entitled 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', published in Ichnos, volume 22, issue 3-4 (2015) - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491?journalCode=gich20 . In the abstract the author says, "The supposed tetrapod tracks from the Middle Devonian of the Zachelmie quarry, Poland, fail the criteria for identification as Devonian tetrapod tracks. Indeed, no convincing case has been made that the Zachelmie structures are tetrapod tracks. Instead they are reinterpreted as fish nests/feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus)."

And do you know what also had four limbs? The Tiktaalik and other fishapods. You have never once conclusively shown that it was a true tetrapod.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For heaven's sake, can't you even understand why scientific knowledge improves over time? This is such a spurious argument, it doesn't really deserve a response.

improves over time? When are they finally going to admit their classification of those finches are wrong, in 100 years?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You can't just say "special creation" and be done. How did it work? What did it look like while it was happening? What particular species were created? Theistic evolution, on the other hand, is an falsifiable proposition. Under theistic evolution, life will appear to have evolved naturally with no detectable intervention by a "designer.".

How did the first life arise from non life? What particular bacteria arose? So evolution of life from non life is an unfalsifiable proposition.

Which of the twenty theories of how life arose and how life evolves am I to assume is the falsifiable theory you say is falsifiable? Every time one is shown to no longer be tenable they just claim something else.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So why don't you go and fix then instead of just slumming around anonymously on the internet? You'd be a hero in the scientific community!
Or are you really just blustering and posturing?

Not my job to fix them. I know they are false as do you.

Look in the mirror fellow anonymous slummer on the internet.

I think your the one blustering and postering since your own link you provided simply confirms what I have been telling you all along, which is why you resort to personal attacks because you have no science to back you up. I forgive you though as I understand that is standard tactics for evolutionists as they have no evidence at all except incorrect classifications.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not my job to fix them. I know they are false as do you.

Look in the mirror fellow anonymous slummer on the internet.

I think your the one blustering and postering since your own link you provided simply confirms what I have been telling you all along, which is why you resort to personal attacks because you have no science to back you up. I forgive you though as I understand that is standard tactics for evolutionists as they have no evidence at all except incorrect classifications.

Nothing you have said has been confirmed! All you are doing is saying that you are right because you say your are right. You have no evidence, you have no findings, NOTHING.
I'm not the one who wants to try and shakeup science by making insane claims about science being wrong, it's you. So why don't you actually do something about it then?
Let me answer for you: because you can't. You know you have nothing, but your own cognitive bias will not let you say that to yourself so you have to bluster and posture like you're some errant genius who's been shunned by the scientific community.
All you do is talk the talk, but we'll never see you walk the walk.

 

[Astrophile]

according to this even an ape fossil with a dino isn't an "out of order fossil". this is what you want to argue?

No, this is not what I want to argue. Of course all living and extinct species of apes had ancestors that lived during the time of the dinosaurs, but these ancestors were not apes; they were the ancestral species of mammals that the primates (including the apes) evolved from.

first; do you have any fossils of those supposed ancestors?

No, I don't. For that matter, I don't know the names of any of my own ancestors who lived at the same time as Aristotle (384-322 BC), but I know that they must have existed. And what do you mean by 'supposed ancestors'? Remember, all life comes from life. Living things don't spring up out of the dust of the ground; they come from their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. Therefore the first Devonian tetrapods must have had Silurian, Ordovician, Cambrian and Precambrian ancestors, and these ancestors were not tetrapods.

Would you like to read and comment on the paper by Spencer G. Lucas from Ichnos, vol. 22, issue 3-4, that I gave a link to in post 938? The link to the full article is http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ritical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprint . Lucas argues that the Zachelmie tracks are not tetrapod tracks but fish nests or feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus); the discussion of these tracks is on pages 146-150 of the article.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Unsupported nonsense. I posted this example in another thread...

Speciation in real time

The Central European blackcap spends its summers in Germany and Austria and, until the 1960s, had spent its winters in balmy Spain. About 50 years ago, however, backyard bird feeding became popular in Britain. With a ready supply of food waiting for them in Britain, blackcaps that happened to carry genes that caused them to migrate northwest, instead of southwest to Spain, were able to survive and return to their summer breeding grounds in central Europe. Over time, the proportion of the population carrying northwest-migrating genes has increased. Today, about 10% of the population winters in Britain instead of Spain.

This change in migration pattern has led to a shift in mate availability. The northwest route is shorter than the southwest route, so the northwest-migrating birds get back to Germany sooner each summer. Since blackcaps choose a mate for the season when they arrive at the breeding grounds, the birds tend to mate with others that follow the same migration route.

In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed that these migration and mating shifts have led to subtle differences between the two parts of the population. The splinter group has evolved rounder wings and narrower, longer beaks than their southward-flying brethren. The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. Pointier wings are favored in birds that must travel longer distances, and rounder wings, which increase maneuverability, are favored when distance is less of an issue — as it is for the northwest migrators. Changes in beak size may be related to the food available to each sub-population: fruit for birds wintering in Spain and seeds and suet from garden feeders for birds wintering in Britain. The northwest migrators' narrower, longer beaks may allow them to better take advantage of all the different sorts of foods they wind up eating in the course of a year. These differences have evolved in just 30 generations and could signify the beginning of a speciation event.

So let me see if I got this correct.

Birds

Man causes change in migration and territory
They mate with those they wouldn't normally
Offspring have defining characteristics
Each is still the same species

Dogs


Man causes change in migration and territory
They mate with those they wouldn't normally
Offspring have defining characteristics
Each is still the same species


That about sum it up?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nothing you have said has been confirmed! All you are doing is saying that you are right because you say your are right. You have no evidence, you have no findings, NOTHING.
I'm not the one who wants to try and shakeup science by making insane claims about science being wrong, it's you. So why don't you actually do something about it then?
Let me answer for you: because you can't. You know you have nothing, but your own cognitive bias will not let you say that to yourself so you have to bluster and posture like you're some errant genius who's been shunned by the scientific community.
All you do is talk the talk, but we'll never see you walk the walk.

No your link showed I was right by listing one species and the rest as infraspecific taxa in the species. This is your problem, the problem of all evolutionists. They refuse to admit when they are wrong.

Uncorrected error after uncorrected error after uncorrected error.

But if someone was actually concerned with science and not just upholding his theory, they would admit to the problem in front of their eyes and in black and white.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No your link showed I was right by listing one species and the rest as infraspecific taxa in the species. This is your problem, the problem of all evolutionists. They refuse to admit when they are wrong.

Uncorrected error after uncorrected error after uncorrected error.

But if someone was actually concerned with science and not just upholding his theory, they would admit to the problem in front of their eyes and in black and white.

THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND CORRECT THEM THEN?! It is that bloody simple. If you claim to know the answers, then you have the intellectual responsibility to go and tell the people you claim to be wrong that they are wrong.
But you obviously won't go and do this to any scientist anywhere in the world BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Remember, all life comes from life. Living things don't spring up out of the dust of the ground; they come from their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. Therefore the first Devonian tetrapods must have had Silurian, Ordovician, Cambrian and Precambrian ancestors, and these ancestors were not tetrapods.

And yet the first life form had to do just that did it not, spring forth from the dust of the ground since there was no life prior to it???????

So its ok if your first life form springs forth as long as ours doesn't, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO AND CORRECT THEM THEN?! It is that bloody simple. If you claim to know the answers, then you have the intellectual responsibility to go and tell the people you claim to be wrong that they are wrong.
But you obviously won't go and do this to any scientist anywhere in the world BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG.

Yah thats what you said when they claimed coelacanth was a transitional. Said we were wrong then too. Funny it turned out the other way then and will this time too.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yah thats what you said when they claimed coelacanth was a transitional. Said we were wrong then too. Funny it turned out the other way then and will this time too.

Are you just completely ignoring what I am saying? If you know that the entire classification system is wrong, why aren't you out there telling and educating all of the biologists and paleontologists in the world that they are wrong and showing them the truth?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you just completely ignoring what I am saying? If you know that the entire classification system is wrong, why aren't you out there telling and educating all of the biologists and paleontologists in the world that they are wrong and showing them the truth?

Why bother? They got finches interbreeding right in front of their faces and the DNA data to show they had always been doing so and were never reproductively isolated so speciation never occurred. Hasnt kept them from still preaching false species.....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why bother? They got finches interbreeding right in front of their faces and the DNA data to show they had always been doing so and were never reproductively isolated so speciation never occurred. Hasnt kept them from still preaching false species.....

So you're just lazy.
You have the ability to practically and literally shape humanity's understanding of the world... but you can't be bothered. Real classy.
But further proof that you truly do have nothing but words.

 

[pshun2404]

So I guess you didn't see the paper that astrophile linked to in post #938, a paper by Spencer G. Lucas, entitled 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', published in Ichnos, volume 22, issue 3-4 (2015) - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491?journalCode=gich20 . In the abstract the author says, "The supposed tetrapod tracks from the Middle Devonian of the Zachelmie quarry, Poland, fail the criteria for identification as Devonian tetrapod tracks. Indeed, no convincing case has been made that the Zachelmie structures are tetrapod tracks. Instead they are reinterpreted as fish nests/feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus)."

And do you know what also had four limbs? The Tiktaalik and other fishapods. You have never once conclusively shown that it was a true tetrapod.

I read it and I disagree because even this writer if you read the whole article dates the earliest bonifide tetrapod trackways to early late devonian. Late devonian begins about 375 mya, so early LD is before this, and Tik does not appear until around 363 mys (still millions of years later). So whether or not this one example is or is not a tetrapod (which I think is obvious from just looking at them) the point is still made. Tik comes AFTER his ancestors not BEFORE them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"One of those subspecies happened to be the ancestor of the Orohippus genus, and one of the subspecies of Orohippus happened to be the ancestor of the Epihippus genus, and so on up through to the Mesohippus, Merychippus, and modern Equus genera to the zebra of which we have discussed often in this thread."

That IS the way your like-minded intelligences have designed the system of categorization which may or may not actually be true.

Huh? Previously you said you agreed with this? Now you don't any more?

Once more this is what I had said:

How do you think the first zebra came into existance? I think it evolved from an animal like the Merychippus, which evolved from an animal like Hyracotherium over many millions of years. How do you think it happened?​

And you had responded:

Me also! These are early varieties of what we now call "horse"

So yes, we have it in writing that you think the zebra evolved from the Hyracotherium.

If you don't actually believe that, then please answer the question. How do you think the first zebra came into existence? Did it pop up out of nowhere?

 

[Astrophile]

And yet the first life form had to do just that did it not, spring forth from the dust of the ground since there was no life prior to it???????

Yes, but the first life form was probably something very simple, not much more than a self-replicating system of organic molecules. Also, it probably developed from a slightly simpler system of organic molecules, not from inorganic matter. The more complex cellular organisms, even the prokaryotes, have to develop from something that is already alive, not from systems of organic molecules.

This does not change the fact that the Devonian tetrapods were descended from Silurian ancestors that were not tetrapods.

So its ok if your first life form springs forth as long as ours doesn't, right?

I don't mind your first life form springing forth provided that you accept the evidence that all modern life forms have evolved from the first life form.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I read it and I disagree because even this writer if you read the whole article dates the earliest bonifide tetrapod trackways to early late devonian. Late devonian begins about 375 mya, so early LD is before this, and Tik does not appear until around 363 mys (still millions of years later). So whether or not this one example is or is not a tetrapod (which I think is obvious from just looking at them) the point is still made. Tik comes AFTER his ancestors not BEFORE them.

I actually can't read the full article because it's behind a paywall, and I am not spending £33 just for one single article. So perhaps you can actually quote the section where the author says that since I'd be interested in reading that segment.
Although, from my reading on the internet, the first tetrapods are still classed as being MARINE animals, meaning that they were more likely to be fishapods than what can be considered true tetrapods. So you really seem to not actually be that understanding of what is being said.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, but the first life form was probably something very simple, not much more than a self-replicating system of organic molecules. Also, it probably developed from a slightly simpler system of organic molecules, not from inorganic matter. The more complex cellular organisms, even the prokaryotes, have to develop from something that is already alive, not from systems of organic molecules.

This does not change the fact that the Devonian tetrapods were descended from Silurian ancestors that were not tetrapods.

I don't mind your first life form springing forth provided that you accept the evidence that all modern life forms have evolved from the first life form.

Could you please show us any self replicating organic molecules outside of being part of a living system?

 

[pshun2404]

I actually can't read the full article because it's behind a paywall, and I am not spending £33 just for one single article. So perhaps you can actually quote the section where the author says that since I'd be interested in reading that segment.
Although, from my reading on the internet, the first tetrapods are still classed as being MARINE animals, meaning that they were more likely to be fishapods than what can be considered true tetrapods. So you really seem to not actually be that understanding of what is being said.

You win! Call it transitional if you wish. You are in a lot of good company. However, I will accept the find in Poland until it is actually debunked. But I would like to add that with your keenly inquiring mind that sum would be a worthwhile investment. Some sources like Science and the AAAS offer free access. I will submit the argument to you, because this guy made a good point...just because a bunch of people agree (even with letters after their name) does not mean their assessment is correct.