You've Probably Seen a Fish with Lungs in Person

[Kenny'sID]

Once again, here is your question:

"Transitional species? And you know they will finish transforming, how?"

and my answer:

"You appear to be asking, how do we know that Polypterus Senegalus will "finish transforming?" Is that right? If that is your question, then the answer is, we don't know. If Senegalus is in an ecological niche with stable selection criteria it may well stay more or less the same indefinitely. The reason it would stay the same is because of random variation and natural selection."

You may not like my answer; you may not understand my answer. But to assert that I have not given you an answer is a bald-faced lie.

And to assert you answered my question as it was asked, of which I clarified several times, is a lie.

It's not a matter of my not liking your answer, it's a matter of answering the question given, or not.

 

[Speedwell]

It seems like i keep running into this question not sure if from the same people but i guess so (in a sense).
If you do not believe the Bible to be accurate, then what is the reason for me to post any statements from the Bible.
If this is true when written, then why is this now, not true 2000 years later.
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Now if the whole world lies under the wicked one and this being (satan) has been stated by the Jesus to be a liar and the father of lies where no truth is found.
Why would a believer expect truth (about God's creation) to come from a worldly atheist scientist.

What's "not true?" The Bible is certainly true--it is the inspired word of God. But that does not mean that the Book of Genesis was intended to be taken as 100% accurate literal history. And no essential point of Christian doctrine depends on it being so. It has nothing to do with evolution; I regard a literal interpretation of Genesis as shallow and theologically inadequate and would have nothing to do with it even if there were no theory of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

And to assert you answered my question as it was asked, of which I clarified several time is a lie as well.

It's not a matter of my not liking your answer, it's a matter of answering the question given, or not.

"And you know they will finish transforming, How?"

That was your question, correct? My answer is basically, we don't know that they will "finish transforming." We don't know if they will ever undergo any major evolutionary change in future.

Question asked and answered. End of discussion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

"And you know they will finish transforming, How?"

That was your question, correct? My answer is basically, we don't know that they will "finish transforming." We don't know if they will ever undergo any major evolutionary change in future.

Question asked and answered. End of discussion.

And thank you for changing your answer to address the question.

Now, end of discussion.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Transitional species? And you know they will finish transforming, how?

I know a lot of e-ink has been spilled on this already, but my own answer would be more like...

The question is based on some slight misunderstanding. It is not that there is a normal species A, and then a transitional species B, and then a normal species C. And that when B finally gets to C, some sort of transformation is 'finished'.

All species are complete. Living complete lives however they do. All species are transitional -- between their ancestors and their descendants (if any).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Excuse me if I am not impressed with your argument. I don't accept that "proof of concept" has any relevance.

It might not to you. Not everything posted on here is for your personal benefit, or debates your specific beliefs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That monitor lizard just ate evolution.

Lol, no, it's a participant. Mudskippers unable to escape predators are weeded out of the population, making future generations more likely to inherit traits that benefit escaping. Likewise, if mudskippers served as a good food source for monitor lizards, the lizards better at catching them would be more likely to survive and reproduce as well. Life is basically a never-ending arms race between predator and prey, and they influence each others' evolution.

 

[pitabread]

I gave you an answer. If you don't understand it, ask more questions. That's how discussion works.

I love how every discussion with Kenny devolves into explaining basic communication concepts.

 

[pitabread]

More of those transitional species creationists insist don't exist in the fossil record.. except alive. Today. Right in front of their eyes. Mudskippers. "Flying" fish. Legless lizards. They are all over the place.

I'd be a bit careful of using the term "transitional" with modern species. I understand the point you are making, but it can confuse people when it comes to the way the term is usually used with transitional fossils. In the latter case, transitional fossils specifically bridge taxa based on morphology of the fossils. Whereas modern species aren't bridging existing taxa, since we don't know yet what they will evolve into.

 

[Kenny'sID]

All species are complete. Living complete lives however they do. All species are transitional -- between their ancestors and their descendants (if any).

Then you are saying they may not be transitional at all or you don't know if they are. And that's not a question, you actually are saying that.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you are saying they may not be transitional at all or you don't know if they are. And that's not a question, you actually are saying that.

All species which have ever existed are transitional. That includes species which exist today. The trouble is, because we can't foretell the future, we can't tell what they might be going to evolve into.

Think about that and then go back and read Essentiasaltes' post #69.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Lol, no, it's a participant. Mudskippers unable to escape predators are weeded out of the population, making future generations more likely to inherit traits that benefit escaping. Likewise, if mudskippers served as a good food source for monitor lizards, the lizards better at catching them would be more likely to survive and reproduce as well. Life is basically a never-ending arms race between predator and prey, and they influence each others' evolution.

Fact is, Skippy there may already be as equal to other animals in terms of the ability to survive, so he needs no evolution to help him with that. Though he can get caught on land, and make the same deadly mistakes any animal can, he has the ability to hide on both land and water, as well as to move to places the fish cannot, in search of food, or another puddle in case of drought, when his puddle dries out.

Not to mention he can spit water in his predators face, and while they're doing the whole "Ewww!" thing, he's outta' there.

On a side note, one might think the same of a lung fish by the way they look and the fact they may seem pretty helpless, and in need of the help of evolution, when they are far from it. They can live 5yrs underground without food or water, where they can out live many other type animals in certain types of disasters, including some of their own predators.

Animals survive or not because of how they were made, and not because they made themselves survivable via evolution.

 

[d taylor]

What's "not true?" The Bible is certainly true--it is the inspired word of God. But that does not mean that the Book of Genesis was intended to be taken as 100% accurate literal history. And no essential point of Christian doctrine depends on it being so. It has nothing to do with evolution; I regard a literal interpretation of Genesis as shallow and theologically inadequate and would have nothing to do with it even if there were no theory of evolution.

Show me where the Bible states it is not to be taken as is. True the Bible has nothing to do with evolution because evolution does not exist.
If anything, what these scientist are seeing is related to Genesis 6 and the nephilim(fallen ones). As Genesis states, So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

It is only shallow and theologically inadequate because the visible church is a man serving organization and very few are a God fearing scripture honoring institution. The visible church is as much a part of the world as many of the unbelieving portion of society.

Maybe the church should look to science to tell you how to get to heaven, since they are trusting in science for just about every other area of God's creation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then you are saying they may not be transitional at all or you don't know if they are. And that's not a question, you actually are saying that.

No, what I actually said is that all species are transitional.

However, pitabread's comments about possible confusion is well taken. It is better to speak of transitional fossils, which has a clearer meaning, than to speak of modern species being transitional.

 

[xianghua]

No, what I actually said is that all species are transitional.

if so its also true for designed objects. and by the way many "missing links" are actually "out of place".

 

[Speedwell]

Show me where the Bible states it is not to be taken as is.

What do you mean by "as is?" How else is there to take it?

 

[pitabread]

if so its also true for designed objects.

Just stop.

 

[pitabread]

All species which have ever existed are transitional. That includes species which exist today.

Well, no. This is where I again caution with the use of the term "transitional". If we specifically use the term transitional to refer to intermediaries between taxa then by definition not everything can be transitional.

For example, if a species line goes extinct then that particular species isn't transitional since it didn't transition into a new subspecies.

IMHO, what people are trying to characterize here is that life is ever-evolving. That as long as life exists and populations of organisms change over time, life will continue to evolve into new and wonderful things. And by extension occupy the various environmental niches that exist on Earth.

 

[essentialsaltes]

if so its also true for designed objects.

Hmmm.... living things and designed things are both made of matter. Astonishing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, what I actually said is that all species are transitional.

Here is your prior post to the above:

All species are complete. Living complete lives however they do. All species are transitional -- between their ancestors and their descendants (if any).

"If any", meaning, all may not even have ancestors or descendants, makes it clear the comment "all species are transitional" ,is not correct after all. They have to have ancestors in order to be transitional.