Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

xianghua said:

that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil". more than that: we can also find transitional form between designed objects. but of course that it doesnt prove they evolved from each other, even if they were able to reproduce:

(image from Commercial Transportation Insurance)

Click to expand...

You are essentially arguing that Americans cannot be descended from Europeans since there are still Europeans. That is not a problem.

xianghua said:

variations among creatures is a fact (variations of dogs for instance). but the claim that a dog can evolve into something different (say a cat) isnt a fact but a theory.

Click to expand...

If your understanding of evolution is so poor how do you ever expect to argue against it? The theory of evolution says that a dog cannot evolve into a cat. Please brush up on the concept of cladistics.

xianghua said:

thanks but i know very well about evolution. what i said is true: according to evolution there is no problem that a dog will evolve into a cat or any other creature. i also gave it just as an example, it can be any other creature.

Click to expand...

No, you really really do not understand the theory at all.

Once again, cladistics will fix this problem of yours. Or in case you need a reminder, you are still an ape, you are still a "monkey" (depending on how one defines monkeys). You are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, you are still a chordate, you are still a eukaryote, and you are still a living orgnaism.

That takes us back to the beginning of life with no change in kind.

DaveISBA said:

Steven M. Stanley, American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist (Macroevolution): Pattern and Process, p. 39) “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition, and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

Click to expand...

What point was he specifically making in that section of his book do you think?

xianghua said:

that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

Click to expand...

It has been explained to you at length, multiple times, why this is not a problem.

Why do you keep doing this? All you are doing is making yourself and by extension creationists in general look dishonest and foolish.

Subduction Zone said:

If your understanding of evolution is so poor how do you ever expect to argue against it?

Click to expand...

Although if creationists had a decent understanding of evolution, they'd probably be a lot less likely to try to argue against it.

Bit of a catch-22, that.

pitabread said:

Although if creationists had a decent understanding of evolution, they'd probably be a lot less likely to try to argue against it.

Bit of a catch-22, that.

Click to expand...

Some have the excuse to be new at debating evolution. But not so in this case. How many times does one have to repeat failed and false arguments before a person is called a liar?

Ouch. Debating with creationists...again?

The persistence of this clearly maladaptive behavior almost falsifies evolution by natural selection for me.

DaveISBA said:

Prominent researchers who are evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould that examine the observable evidence state that not just a few species but most, some argue all life, appear abruptly with no transitional forms, then exhibit stasis throughout their history of existence!

Click to expand...

So where do you think that the first members of each species came from? Were they born from a female of a completely different species, or were they specially created? How long do you think that a typical species lasts? In your opinion, why do species become extinct?

xianghua said:

that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil".

Click to expand...

Why are you willing to accept this paper while, at the same time, you reject the abundant evidence for evolution?

If the Middle Devonian Zachelmie tracks really were made by tetrapods, these tetrapods must have been descended from Lower Devonian or Silurian animals that were not tetrapods. Therefore, if somebody found the fossils of the animals that made the Zachelmie tracks, they would presumably be transitional between Silurian/Lower Devonian fish and Upper Devonian/Carboniferous tetrapods; in other words, they would still be transitional fossils.

Subduction Zone said:

Some have the excuse to be new at debating evolution. But not so in this case. How many times does one have to repeat failed and false arguments before a person is called a liar?

Click to expand...

From my experience being reported to the Mods: You may never call somebody a liar - that will get you a slap and your post removed. You may call their arguments lies all you want, as long as you have grounds for making that claim.

Bungle_Bear said:

From my experience being reported to the Mods: You may never call somebody a liar - that will get you a slap and your post removed. You may call their arguments lies all you want, as long as you have grounds for making that claim.

Click to expand...

If a liar is defined as 'a person who tells lies', then isn't saying one's argument is a lie the same thing as calling them a liar?

Strathos said:

If a liar is defined as 'a person who tells lies', then isn't saying one's argument is a lie the same thing as calling them a liar?

Click to expand...

Although the argument is a lie, the person making it may or may not being aware of this and therefore may or may not be a liar. The important thing to remember is that you're addressing the content of the post, not the person.

Strathos said:

If a liar is defined as 'a person who tells lies', then isn't saying one's argument is a lie the same thing as calling them a liar?

Click to expand...

No. Many people repeat lies without realizing that they are doing so. I would say that most creationists new to debating could use this excuse. They are at worst "liars by proxy". But they themselves are not trying to deceive. They truly believe the nonsense that they post.

At any rate, most creationist debaters are not interested in learning why they are wrong. They are looking for excuses to continue to believe ideas that were shown to be wrong over one hundred years ago.

Ronald said:

A peacock was made finished.

Click to expand...

It's a little amusing when you write this.

The 'eyespots' of peacock plumage, among other bird ornamentation and displays, were one of the reasons Darwin developed his thinking on sexual selection as a part of the wider theory of evolution.

As a result, peacock plumage development has been quite well (but far from exhaustively) studied over the past decades. And, the animal has become a bit of a point of debate between various sides of evolutionary biologists about varying hypotheses on sexual selection drivers. As a result, quite a lot is known about peacock evolutionary development.

Ronald said:

Likewise, a rose

Click to expand...

This is a mistake on the same level as "Behold, the banana, the atheists nightmare".

The modern rose is a hybrid of a hybrid of a hybrid, brought about by deliberate interference of humans over (at least) 5000 years and bearing only the most passing resemblance to its ancient forebears.

I suspect that only the most knowledgeable modern rose growers would recognise the two Indian and Chinese plants the majority of the ~200 modern rose species are derived from. They look rather like a camellia which has decided to grow outward rather than upward, and to try making prickles and runners instead of branches and flowers.

(un)Fortunately, I had a mother who was obsessed with ancient rose species and kept many of them in her garden. As a result I spent many hours as a young boy trying to retrieve various balls from these extremely spiky and unkempt trees.

Gene2memE said:

The 'eyespots' of peacock plumage, among other bird ornamentation and displays, were one of the reasons Darwin developed his thinking on sexual selection as a part of the wider theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Darwin was confused, leaned on his own understanding, which was a stretch of his imagination. Didn't he think a cell was just a jelly-like substance with little complexity. All things are complex, even the Paremecium, it's flagella is more complex than the space shuttle.

Gene2memE said:

The modern rose is a hybrid of a hybrid of a hybrid, brought about by deliberate interference of humans over (at least) 5000 years and bearing only the most passing resemblance to its ancient forebears.

Click to expand...

Okay, didn't know a rose was a hybrid. Hybrid or what, two different kinds of flowers? You realize my point, He made everything finished. Than obviously, "micro-evolution" - changes within the kind took place. Adaptive mechanisms ... Of course as we see in the 135+ kinds of dogs that were bred from the wolf, God has allowed us to share in the creativity of nature: flowers, dogs, etc.

Strathos said:

If a liar is defined as 'a person who tells lies', then isn't saying one's argument is a lie the same thing as calling them a liar?

Click to expand...

As @Bungle_Bear and @Subduction Zone have already pointed out, one may unknowingly repeat lies and thus not be a liar. What some posters in this context are, however, is plagiarists. Why? Because they repeat these lies as if they were original thoughts and objections of their own. Ultimately is seems to come down to inadequate education in the matter of debating technique.

Ronald said:

Darwin was confused, leaned on his own understanding, which was a stretch of his imagination. Didn't he think a cell was just a jelly-like substance with little complexity. All things are complex, even the Paremecium, it's flagella is more complex than the space shuttle.

Click to expand...

This is merely an argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't know, therefore God".

Okay, didn't know a rose was a hybrid. Hybrid or what, two different kinds of flowers? You realize my point, He made everything finished. Than obviously, "micro-evolution" - changes within the kind took place. Adaptive mechanisms ... Of course as we see in the 135+ kinds of dogs that were bred from the wolf, God has allowed us to share in the creativity of nature: flowers, dogs, etc.

Click to expand...

Then why does all of the scientific evidence support evolution and only evolution? Are you claiming that God planted false evidence? You know what that would make him, don't you? And creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of kind.

One serious question, do you want to know, or are you just looking for excuses?

Ronald said:

Of course as we see in the 135+ kinds of dogs that were bred from the wolf

Click to expand...

The problem is that no creationist can agree upon what a "kind" is supposed to be. It's a useless descriptor.

Subduction Zone said:

Your last statement is wrong. Wikipedia is a reliable source when used correctly.

And you are behind the times in regard to what paleontologists think as well. There have been many new discoveries since their times. Many "gaps" have been filled in. This thread is about another filled gap.

And of course you do not understand what Stanley and Gould were claiming. They were stating that there are long periods of stasis along with short periods of rapid evolution. When they claimed that species appeared suddenly they were talking about geologic time. And they were essentially correct. Their work allowed people that followed to concentrate their studies in the areas of rapid evolution. Concentrating on those time periods allowed specific gaps to be filled in. Tiktaalik is the best known example of using a focused search for a transitional species.

Click to expand...

You claim "Wikipedia is a reliable source when used correctly."? There is no such clarification in their disclaimer! What they do admit on their website "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."along with the reason why it is not they say "caveat lector" Latin meaning "let the buyer beware"...I believe them!

There are of coarse the claims of intermediates, if they're not outright frauds, when their history of existence is examined they appear abruptly then stasis and either go extinct or still in existence!

When the amount of intermediates links should be "truly enormous" as Darwin stated then had to admit:
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory". Tiktaalik...this one and only flat as a pancake, partial fossil after 26 years of searching is a desperate imagination! Tiktaalik's co-discoverer had to admit that for 26 years he found lots of fossils of fully fish and 4 legged animals but no links between the two!
Tiktaalik is described as a (lobe finned fish) and like all claimed intermediates, appears all at once in the fossil record then without changing into something else, apparently it went extinct! The fossil of the lobe finned fish coelacanth, as tiktaalik, was hailed an intermediate link until it was found still swimming around in the ocean!

Behind the times? Don't know how much more recent you can get than this Phys.org article dated Feb 19, 2013 (New species appear to arise from sudden changes): "Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. (They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist).” Just as Darwin observed in his day! All these years later and still no intermediate forms found! My emphasis on the last sentence!