Macroevolution:

[Obliquinaut]

Great, images of skulls, some individual bones and that is your idea of transitional fossils"?

So you demand something, are shown it, and you denigrate it. But no real science is presented by you. Just this ad nauseum string of Gish Gallops.

If you don't like science or lack the ability to learn science, why bother critiquing science?

 

[pitabread]

Could it be like a Ferrari and a Peterbilt? Do they share the same ancestry? Or like a Chevy and a Cadilac that even share some of the same parts? Are they similar but different?

If life we designed in such a fashion we might expect to see more chimeric organisms in nature. But oddly we don't. For example, my don't dolphins and fish share the same body plans? Why don't dolphins have gills?

Why don't bats have the same wing design as birds? Why no feathers? Etc...

 

[Obliquinaut]

But they have all something in common maybe .. they are all human ? Guy asked for transitional fossil not fossil of evolving human but something that evolved into human .

LOLOL.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Could it be like a Ferrari and a Peterbilt? Do they share the same ancestry? Or like a Chevy and a Cadilac that even share some of the same parts? Are they similar but different?

OH GREAT! Now we've entered into ID! Yay!

Praise God from all Ferraris flow!

 

[bhsmte]

Something died?

Very good.

 

[pitabread]

I am not Mark but found this interesting.

"Phylogenetic trees, although speculative, provide a convenient method for studying phylogenetic relationships."
phylogenetic tree | biology

No doubt some consider "speculative" to be proven science, not everyone does.

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into a single term in an encyclopedic definition of a scientific concept.

It's a given that a phylogenetic reconstruction is never going to be 100% perfect. It's simply the limitation of working with available data and the limits (and error margins) of statistical reconstructions. If we already had 100% perfect information about nature, there would be no need for science, because we'd already know everything.

That said, this hardly invalidates what we do know about phylogenetic reconstruction. Like it or not, life appears to be related via common ancestry.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I do not know of any creationist that does not believe in "microevolution", adaptive change

LOL! I bet you can't explain simply how a bacterium leverages certain biochemistries to create entirely new biochemistries. You just blow it off with the phrase "adaptive change"!

Think about it for a second: imagine the amount of biochemistry involved in making yourself immune to a poison that kills you.

But it's all "adaptive change" to you.

Can I ask: have you ever taken a science class above just intro level freshman or high school? I don't mean that as a slam, but it really does seem that you handwave away a LOT of heavy stuff there.

 

[lesliedellow]

Hey, I admit being slow so can you explain in real simple terms how that possibly answers my question?

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?"

It seems to me that it is a deflection but then as I said, I am not all that smart.

In the case of the Wikipedia article I posted, a whole gamut of extinct species are covered, including from Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 million years ago) to homo sapiens (present day).

However, I am sure you have a convenient pile of sand, all ready for you to bury your head in.

 

[tevans9129]

You can go here if you want more comprehensive phylogenies covering everything including the 3 primary domains of life: opentree

Thanks for the info, much more in depth and this is what I found. I have bolded some words that I found interesting.

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process."

IOW, science knows for a fact that everything evolved from a single cell but science cannot explain where and how that single cell came into existence, is that about right?

 

[Non sequitur]

I answered no to your question and then I asked the question. I inferred that you are the expert so would think my request would be a simple one.

"can you provide a link as I requested of one that you consider as transitional?"

Either you can, or, perhaps you do not want to commit to what your idea of what a "transitional fossil" is. IMO, you have no link to what I asked for and I have certainly not been able to find one in my search.

You didn't say no to me, and it wasn't a yes or no question. Maybe you were responding to Obliquinaut?

 

[JacksBratt]

-sigh- yeah. We've heard it all before. But stratigraphy isn't quite as simple as all that. First off, the presence of "polystrate fossils" (not a technical term used in geology) was not a problem for 19th century geologists and, indeed, you don't just assume that all formations all accumulate at a slow rate. There is some evidence that occasionally formations accumulate relatively quickly. It doesn't really change the overall view of "deep time", but it does show that sedimentology can work over a variety of timescales.

You can learn more about it here: "Polystrate" Tree Fossils



And again, even today we occasionally see rapid burial of items.



This was a surprise and interestingly enough there's a couple reasons for this:

1. Few people had bothered to check for organic preservation in rocks that old because, as one geologist noted: if you assume it isn't there why go to the effort to dig up these fossils only to digest them and crush them and destroy them looking for it?

2. The science indicates that there is a role for iron in preserving some of these materials. It has apparently been tested in the lab, so it's a workable hypothesis that doesn't in any way cause problems with deep time.



You might want to actually read what the scientists think about this stuff. Role of iron in soft tissue preservation | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences



I love reading the words of people who don't have the discipline to study science for years and find a way to complain that their ignorance of the science is somehow a valid critique of the science. "Baffle-gab". Truly excellent term.

What it really means is: "I don't understand it so it must be wrong." Well, for those of us who bothered to get a PhD in geochemistry it really isn't all that "Baffling".



It already has been. It already has been.

Well, if your comfortable with all that.....

For me, it's simple, God did it just the way He said He did. And "it was Good".

 

[pitabread]

IOW, science knows for a fact that everything evolved from a single cell but science cannot explain where and how that single cell came into existence, is that about right?

The earliest fossilized life on Earth are singled cell organisms, so it's basically a given that life started that way. As for the origin of life itself, it's still an area of research that scientists are working on.

This site has a nice illustrative examples of how it could have happened: Exploring Life's Origins: A Virtual Exhibit

More technical research here: Szostak Lab: Home

 

[driewerf]

The earliest fossilized life on Earth are singled cell organisms, so it's basically a given that life started that way. As for the origin of life itself, it's still an area of research that scientists are working on.

This site has a nice illustrative examples of how it could have happened: Exploring Life's Origins: A Virtual Exhibit

More technical research here: Szostak Lab: Home

Jack Szostak is currently one of the most prominent researchers for the origin of life.
Here is part one of a three part lecture by Szostak:

 

[tevans9129]

That isn't what you originally asked for.

Now that I can understand...you have no answer for my question so therefore a discourse to deflect away from the question...

"Can you provide a link that has unaltered photographs of "transitional fossils"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

The link was images of skulls and individual bones to which I asked...

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?

Five paragraphs to answer "no" to the question.

 

[tevans9129]

So you demand something,

Can you quote me "demanding" anything and if you cannot, is that a false accusation?

 

[tevans9129]

If you don't like science or lack the ability to learn science, why bother critiquing science?

My entire career was in the field of "science" what I do not like is to see dogmatic statements as fact when the person making them cannot provide clear, plausible, verifiable answers when asked questions that challenge their assertions.

 

[xianghua]

That said, this hardly invalidates what we do know about phylogenetic reconstruction. Like it or not, life appears to be related via common ancestry.

are you sure?:

Archaea - Wikipedia

"The evolutionary relationship between archaea and eukaryotes remains unclear. "

or:

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

"This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

 

[xianghua]

Now that I can understand...you have no answer for my question so therefore a discourse to deflect away from the question...

"Can you provide a link that has unaltered photographs of "transitional fossils"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

The link was images of skulls and individual bones to which I asked...

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?

Five paragraphs to answer "no" to the question.

actually any fossil cant be evidence for evolution. because we can arrange many objects (like cars) in hierarchy. but it doesnt prove any evolution. even if cars were able to reproduce it will not be evidence for evolution:

evolution of ferrari‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

 

[bhsmte]

My entire career was in the field of "science" what I do not like is to see dogmatic statements as fact when the person making them cannot provide clear, plausible, verifiable answers when asked questions that challenge their assertions.

What kind of career was that?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Correct. You are not required to believe in anything in science. The irony is what you don't know yet rely on daily.

I believe in lots of science, just not evolution.

NOT AT ALL! We scientists just want the science-deniers to stand out of the way of education or work in the sciences. That's all!

People are free to disbelieve anything they don't have the wherewithal to study themselves or don't have the discipline to put the work into learning. But they should not stand in the way of science moving forward.

Science is moving at breakneck speed now.

So you don't find medicine and biology "beneficial"? Or you don't like the inconvenience that evolution poses to your assessment of "beneficial"?

You misread. I do find medicine and biology beneficial.

You can always hope! And hope springs eternal! (Hint: why do you think your doctor probably dissected various non-human animals in their biology classes? Do you think your doctor ever reads medical literature in which animal models were used to assess the safety of a drug they prescribe you?)

I dissected a frog in HS biology but it didn't convince me of evolution. I gut deer all the time and don't see evolution. I see a wonderful well-planned system.