Are there transitional fossils?

[pshun2404]

Hi Pshun, that post of mine was addressed to to Mr Huskies not your good self. You and I might might have differences of opinion but I do credit you with putting some thought into your arguments.

My bad Jim...you are right...sorry! And do excuse me, I do not agree with the "old" science foolishness. If we were talking about 100's of years ago okay maybe, but the Grant's study was significant even though 50 years ago.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Why should I accept a clearly erroneous supposition?

You have yet to explain how bacteria develop DNA that is not in their genes already?

While on the other hand we understand from genetics that the genomic content is passed down generation to generation and is not becoming more complex, but more and more prone to errors.

They say 98% of the human DNA is now junk DNA, which supports the hypothesis that the DNA was perfect from the start and has degraded over the successive generations.

Also all we need do is look at the wolf, which already had in its genomes the possibility to bring forth over 100 different infraspecific taxa. All without one single evolutionary theory needed to explain those myriad of divergent infraspecific taxa. That you incorrectly list infraspecific taxa in the fossil record is part of the problem to begin with.

I need not start with a false supposition, but merely one that conforms to direct emperical and scientific observation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think you forgot to mention that zebras don't spring forth from the dust of the ground,
as many here propose happened. How does your view stand up to the "this does not happen often" argument?

Neither do we see new life arising spontaneously from non life, or even organic molecules for that matter, doesn't stop you from having faith that it was so.

 

[Speedwell]

Neither do we see new life arising spontaneously from non life, or even organic molecules for that matter, doesn't stop you from having faith that it was so.

Faith? We think it pretty likely, given what we know now, but are prepared to change our minds if contrary evidence emerges. Is that what you mean by faith?

 

[Astrophile]

It does not happen in nature only in labs. It is hypothesized to happen in nature but that is not the same thing.

First, how do you know this? Have you read any scientific papers on the matter?

Second, if a chemical reaction happens in laboratories, what is there to prevent it from happening in nature?

Third, you are moving the goalposts. You said,

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

When I showed you some examples of self-replicating organic molecules, you refused to accept them and said that you wanted self-replicating molecules occurring in nature rather than in laboratories. What would you say if I, or anybody else, could find examples of natural self-replicating organic molecules?

Fourth, if self-replicating organic molecules were to form on the present-day Earth, the living things that exist now would eat them. The same self-replicating molecules on a pre-biotic Earth would have had more chance of surviving.

Finally, we are being side-tracked from the issue of transitional fossils. I said that the first life-form was probably much simpler than any cellular life-form, and that it may have developed from a slightly simpler system of organic molecules. This was merely to say that theories of abiogenesis and evolution don't have to rely on the miraculous appearance of a fully formed bacterial cell. However, the possibility that the first life-form was a complex system of organic molecules that may have developed from a slightly less complex system of organic molecules doesn't change the essential fact, that, because all life comes from life, the tetrapods of the Devonian period must have had Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian ancestors, which were vertebrates but not tetrapods.

Do you, in fact, accept that the Devonian tetrapods had Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian ancestors? If not, have you any alternative explanation of their origin?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but if we will find an ape with a dino you can just say that ape evolved eariler that we assumed.

On what grounds do you think that what you wrote is right?

 

[Astrophile]

Why should I accept a clearly erroneous supposition?

You have yet to explain how bacteria develop DNA that is not in their genes already?

While on the other hand we understand from genetics that the genomic content is passed down generation to generation and is not becoming more complex, but more and more prone to errors.

They say 98% of the human DNA is now junk DNA, which supports the hypothesis that the DNA was perfect from the start and has degraded over the successive generations.

Also all we need do is look at the wolf, which already had in its genomes the possibility to bring forth over 100 different infraspecific taxa. All without one single evolutionary theory needed to explain those myriad of divergent infraspecific taxa. That you incorrectly list infraspecific taxa in the fossil record is part of the problem to begin with.

I need not start with a false supposition, but merely one that conforms to direct emperical and scientific observation.

This has nothing to do with my post. I did not mention bacterial DNA, junk DNA, genetics, wolves or infraspecific taxa, so why are you bringing them up?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Faith? We think it pretty likely, given what we know now, but are prepared to change our minds if contrary evidence emerges. Is that what you mean by faith?

But I dont think you are willing to change your minds. Finches kind of show just how unwilling they are to "change their minds" and accept the truth. Darwin classified those finches as seperate species on the belief they were reproductively isolated. For close to 200 years people believed this. Then when the DNA was actually tested, they find they have one and all been interbreeding from the beginning. Reproductive isolation never occurred, and speciation never happened. Not only this, but they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their noses. Yet they refuse to correct the mistaken classification, refuse to "change their minds" when presented with the data that shows they are wrong. Just as if I suspect you will now try to make all sorts of excuses why you wont "change your mind" and accept the data for what it says.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This has nothing to do with my post. I did not mention bacterial DNA, junk DNA, genetics, wolves or infraspecific taxa, so why are you bringing them up?

Because your presupposition that I must accept evolutionary theory is not based upon any of the data such as bacterial DNA, junk DNA, wolves or infraspecific taxa. your presupposition requires that I ignore the data, hence your objection to bringing the data up.

 

[Astrophile]

but if we will find an ape with a dino you can just say that ape evolved earlier than we assumed.

Certainly not. The first apes (Hominoidea) appear in the fossil record near to the Oligocene-Miocene boundary, about 25 million years ago, and their ancestors, the catarrhine monkeys, appear about 40 million years ago, more than 20 million years after the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. The occurrence of a fossil ape in Mesozoic rocks would be quite impossible and would contradict everything that we know about the evolution of primates.

only if you assume that evolution is true. but if its false- then its not sure that are such fossils. so you cant say "must had". its only a belief, not a fact.

No, it's only if I assume that all life comes from life, that living things have parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. and don't come into existence by spontaneous generation. If the Devonian tetrapods didn't have Silurian ancestors, where do you think that they came from?

so its just a chance that its fit well with other evidences that i gave above?

You'll have to read Lucas's paper, at ResearchGate - Share and discover research and make up your own mind. It's not my field, and I can't comment on it; I cited it merely as an example of a different interpretation of the Zachelmie tracks.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Second, if a chemical reaction happens in laboratories, what is there to prevent it from happening in nature?

If man breeds two infraspecific taxa of dogs, what is to prevent the same thing happening in nature if man had not interfered?

When I showed you some examples of self-replicating organic molecules, you refused to accept them and said that you wanted self-replicating molecules occurring in nature rather than in laboratories. What would you say if I, or anybody else, could find examples of natural self-replicating organic molecules?

Are you trying to imply that organic molecules are life itself?

Organic molecule - Biology-Online Dictionary

"1. A molecule that is normally found in or produced by living systems.

2. A molecule that typically consists of carbon atoms in rings or long chains, where other atoms (e.g. hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen) are attached."

My pencil is composed or organic molecules.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is quite a range of animals. So apparently you think the mud stirred at the command of God, and began to form the first Equus. And apparently you think only one pair of Equus went on board the ark. And one wanders how so many horse, donkey, and zebra species would all come out of one pair of Equus several thousands of years ago.

Sort of like 100 different infraspecific taxa came from wolves? Am I the only one here that sees inconsistency in your insisting hundreds of different variations are impossible from two? The wolf already contained within its genome the possibility for those hundreds of variations. Just as the first two equus contained within their genome all the possible combinations we see today in that genus.

Nothing to wonder at at all, the data exists right before your eyes, barking for attention while you ignore those hundreds of variations that indeed must have been possible already in the genome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi Jim! No, I actually understand perfectly well. I read the work done by the Grant's almost a decade before I came to believe in God (76 or 77) Even then I saw the facts and the fiction. As for Zink I also already was aware of his insights and actually in times gone by I actually used him as support for the view I espouse.

You are NOT incorrect that studying the finches provide us with valuable insights into evolutionary change, and I do not make such a claim. In fact I agree that they do. In my opinion they validate the view which says the mechanisms we ascribe (natural selection, speciation, and so on) produce variety not entirely new creatures.

I also want you to know your example of this happening today was a good one. IF only in 30 or so generations, THEN imagine what after 50,000 generations? I get it I do, though they have already been around for at least 1000s of generations? But the key word is imagine...

One thing (their speciation) is a fact, the other (that they MAY BECOME an entirely different creature, like amphibians allegedly becoming reptiles of whom 50,000 generations have occurred) is not.

One is observation of evidence that can be and has been tested and the other is an explanation to fit a hypothesis (which began with Darwin) that was already accepted as true by those who wanted it to be true L-l-o-o-n-g-g-g before they had found anything that could be interpreted to fit that presupposition.

But be careful Jim or people from your own camp will accuse you of relying on "old" science...(lol)!

Studying those finches falsifies evolutionary change. They were declared separate species because Darwin believed they were reproductively isolated. Actual DNA tests have shown they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. Since they were never reproductively isolated speciation never took place. They simply refuse to correct the mistaken classification simply because they have the name Darwin before them.

 

[Speedwell]

But I dont think you are willing to change your minds. Finches kind of show just how unwilling they are to "change their minds" and accept the truth. Darwin classified those finches as seperate species on the belief they were reproductively isolated. For close to 200 years people believed this. Then when the DNA was actually tested, they find they have one and all been interbreeding from the beginning. Reproductive isolation never occurred, and speciation never happened. Not only this, but they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their noses. Yet they refuse to correct the mistaken classification, refuse to "change their minds" when presented with the data that shows they are wrong. Just as if I suspect you will now try to make all sorts of excuses why you wont "change your mind" and accept the data for what it says.

Too many "theys" in that paragraph. Are you saying that creation scientists discovered that Darwin's finches have been interbreeding and that evolutionary biologists are denying it?

 

[Astrophile]

Because your presupposition that I must accept evolutionary theory is not based upon any of the data such as bacterial DNA, junk DNA, wolves or infraspecific taxa. your presupposition requires that I ignore the data, hence your objection to bringing the data up.

I have read many of your posts, and I can't find anything in common between your understanding of biology and mine. It's like trying to understand the reasoning and the arguments of theosophists and people who believe in UFOs and alien visitations.

It might help if you were to write a book about biology in which you first present the facts about living things and their evolutionary explanation, and then explain how you interpret these facts and why your interpretation is better than the evolutionary interpretation. It would be particularly useful if you could describe in detail what you mean by infraspecific taxa ('varieties'?) and how one can tell these infraspecific taxa from true species. If you were to do that, I might have some idea of what you are getting at.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And the belief that self replicating molecules have been created in the lab is a bit of a reach....

"Was It the Origin of Life"? Biologists Create Self-replicating RNA Molecule

"The enzyme, tC19Z, that has been synthesised could be an artificial version of one of the first enzymes that ever existed on our planet three billion years ago -- and a clue to how life itself got started. Their goal is to create fully self-replicating RNA molecules in the lab."

And cheated by starting with an enzyme to begin with.

"Holliger’s group started with an RNA enzyme called R18,"

And then two of the R18 lineages were artificially combined to create the final enzyme. Two, imagine that. Because with just one lineage it was impossible.

 

[Astrophile]

If man breeds two infraspecific taxa of dogs, what is to prevent the same thing happening in nature if man had not interfered?

Nothing, so far as I know.

Are you trying to imply that organic molecules are life itself?

Organic molecule - Biology-Online Dictionary

"1. A molecule that is normally found in or produced by living systems.

2. A molecule that typically consists of carbon atoms in rings or long chains, where other atoms (e.g. hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen) are attached."

All living things consist of organic molecules, but single organic molecules are not alive. It's the old chestnut of 'all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs'. However, I think that what we call life is an emergent property of complex systems of organic molecules, rather than being something that exists separately.

My pencil is composed or organic molecules.

The wood that your pencil is made of is certainly composed of organic molecules, since it came from a living tree. I don't know whether graphite is regarded as organic.

 

[pshun2404]

First, how do you know this? Have you read any scientific papers on the matter?

Second, if a chemical reaction happens in laboratories, what is there to prevent it from happening in nature?

Third, you are moving the goalposts. You said,


When I showed you some examples of self-replicating organic molecules, you refused to accept them and said that you wanted self-replicating molecules occurring in nature rather than in laboratories. What would you say if I, or anybody else, could find examples of natural self-replicating organic molecules?

Fourth, if self-replicating organic molecules were to form on the present-day Earth, the living things that exist now would eat them. The same self-replicating molecules on a pre-biotic Earth would have had more chance of surviving.

Finally, we are being side-tracked from the issue of transitional fossils. I said that the first life-form was probably much simpler than any cellular life-form, and that it may have developed from a slightly simpler system of organic molecules. This was merely to say that theories of abiogenesis and evolution don't have to rely on the miraculous appearance of a fully formed bacterial cell. However, the possibility that the first life-form was a complex system of organic molecules that may have developed from a slightly less complex system of organic molecules doesn't change the essential fact, that, because all life comes from life, the tetrapods of the Devonian period must have had Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian ancestors, which were vertebrates but not tetrapods.

Do you, in fact, accept that the Devonian tetrapods had Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian ancestors? If not, have you any alternative explanation of their origin?

You are correct I should have been more articulate in the first place. There are no naturally occurring self-replicating organic molecules in nature, and yes I have read many papers on the ones engineered in labs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have read many of your posts, and I can't find anything in common between your understanding of biology and mine. It's like trying to understand the reasoning and the arguments of theosophists and people who believe in UFOs and alien visitations.

It might help if you were to write a book about biology in which you first present the facts about living things and their evolutionary explanation, and then explain how you interpret these facts and why your interpretation is better than the evolutionary interpretation. It would be particularly useful if you could describe in detail what you mean by infraspecific taxa ('varieties'?)

Why, don't you know what your own scientific definition means?

Would you feel better if I used the term subspecies? Would that change anything at all except your delaying tactics to divert the subject?

and how one can tell these infraspecific taxa from true species. If you were to do that, I might have some idea of what you are getting at.

All dogs are merely different infraspecific taxa in the canine species. Asians, Africans, Latinos etc are merely different infraspecific taxa in the homo sapiens species. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer are merely different infraspecific taxa in that species. I've given you examples from the beginning, I fail to see what was so difficult to understand?

Apparently they cant tell babies and adults of the same species apart, so the odds of them identifying subspecies is astronomical. But if you dont know how to identify them, then you cant say with any certainty that those classifications in the fossil record are separate species, now can you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nothing, so far as I know.

And yet the accelerated time table introduced by man shows that if indeed it had been left to nature the same thing would have occurred except on a greater timespan and fewer variations. Yet they are all the same species.

Just as what you perceive to be separate species over greater timeframes in the fossil record are merely the same species.

All living things consist of organic molecules, but single organic molecules are not alive. It's the old chestnut of 'all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs'. However, I think that what we call life is an emergent property of complex systems of organic molecules, rather than being something that exists separately.

Agreed since that life was created from those existing molecules, just not by random chance.

The wood that your pencil is made of is certainly composed of organic molecules, since it came from a living tree. I don't know whether graphite is regarded as organic.

I thought I just posted a link showing all carbon molecules are organic molecules?

Graphite - Wikipedia