A cup of Java

[Shemjaza]

That's not the same thing. We have defined what we think a transitional would look like and we have a whole lot of them sitting around.

Ah yes that is the clue! "WE" have defined what "WE THINK" a transitional would look like...so sure, obviously the "WE" would agree (consensus is not proof...the majority is often incorrect).

I'm not a biologist, so i guess I should have said they. Let's say the majority is incorrect... care to explain how?

You think there aren't any transitional, but won't even explain what you mean by transitional.

An archaeopteryx is a very bird-like dinosaur or a very dinosaur-like bird.
A homo erectus is a human with a whole lot of non human attributes.
A tiktaalik is a fish with a whole load of tetrapod traits.

These don't count, why?

There is no naturally occurring DNA and no "self-replicating" RNA outside of living systems...Yes we have found a few strands of short chain RNA (some have hydrogen bonded in small sections and two samples found relative to meteors (but not sure these were not picked up)....

There are also no functional proteins found outside of living systems.

I can't come up with any easy examples for you, nor can I find any reason for them to be impossible.

Prions and viruses are parasites on life without being alive themselves, they are chemicals that re-produce with he right chemical surroundings. I don't see any step that requires any kind of life miracle.

 

[[serious]]

That's not the same thing. We have defined what we think a transitional would look like and we have a whole lot of them sitting around.

Ah yes that is the clue! "WE" have defined what "WE THINK" a transitional would look like...so sure, obviously the "WE" would agree (consensus is not proof...the majority is often incorrect).

There is no naturally occurring DNA and no "self-replicating" RNA outside of living systems...Yes we have found a few strands of short chain RNA (some have hydrogen bonded in small sections and two samples found relative to meteors (but not sure these were not picked up)....

There are also no functional proteins found outside of living systems.

You seem to forget about viruses. Viruses Are nonliving collections of protein and DNA or RNA capable of replication.

And I'm still waiting on either a definitive rule on what makes a skull ape or human or an application of such a rule to those last 3. And i promise those will be the last 3.

 

[pshun2404]

I name them all transitional, but I'm more interested in if you actually have a system for determining what is ape or human or if you are just trying to pigeonhole obvious transitionals. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you can't determine what is and isn't human, I think we have to all accept that these are transitionals.

I say just let the bones (and related evidences) speak for themselves and leave the imposition of the theory out of the equation. One does not need to jimmie or play with or rearrange or mix up a hodge podge so that it appears it is something meaningful so it supports the theory.

With the Java skull cap Dubois found a human femur (he also found two entirely human skulls equal to any smaller humans). He put the two together calling them one creature while not producing the human skulls found there for decades. Why? Because he was a liar (like his instructor) and his creature was a frankenstein reconstruction from pieces that did not go together.

Such propaganda is the stuff of many so called "transitionals"...they simply are the result of creative (and in this and other cases deceptive) imagination but ARE NOT REAL! They then are given to artists who are told what the deciever is looking for who gives us fake images which are replayed over and over in media and in textbooks (for the imprinting part of the propaganda process)...after years and years of hearing the lie and seeing the photos and having a few people with the alleged authority defend the monster as real....millions believe the lie!

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

You think there aren't any transitional, but won't even explain what you mean by transitional.

1) An archaeopteryx is a very bird-like dinosaur or a very dinosaur-like bird.
2) A homo erectus is a human with a whole lot of non human attributes.
3) A tiktaalik is a fish with a whole load of tetrapod traits.

These don't count, why?

See the post immediately preceding this one....here is an example of what is called and used as a "transitional" that in reality is NOT (but you cannot convince the indoctrinated). Secondly you ask "won't even explain what you mean by transitional." Well get serious...I did not bring up this term so I will not define it.

1) An archaeopteryx is a very bird-like dinosaur or a very dinosaur-like bird.

Just a bird! We have since found actual birds from earlier. Yes this variety of bird does have some anatomical similar to some reptiles but that does not mean one came from the other. Homology is not science it is a form of taxanomic classification. Bats have wings (mammals) that does NOT MEAN that they were once birds or that birds came from bats.

2) A homo erectus is a human with a whole lot of non human attributes.

Again some anatomical similarities does not = one came from the other (come on just think for yourself and step outside the predetermined box). Scientists admit some of the finds are probably just apes, others just humans (even though the theory must deny that to convince you), and some like Java are a hodge podge mixture of the two (to give the appearance that something not true, is true). Others later get reclassified (like Heidelbergensis).

3) A tiktaalik is a fish with a whole load of tetrapod traits.

Not true...this is an assumption based conclusion.

And I did not say these do not count. The question is what do they count as (here is where the human opinion factor kicks in)?

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Now take this principle Goebbels discovered from the enlightenment of Psychologist William James and replace the word "State" with the term "Evolutionary Pedagoguery" and you have what has happened here in this field of study (and listen Serious, I believe in evolution just not this version of the story).

Paul

 

[Loudmouth]

Turkana Boy skeleton in the Smithsonian, to me, unlike Java, is clearly human (an early variety of Sapien),

Then show me a modern human with the same features.

he is a male about a 10 years old with a brain size about 900 cc’s (clearly could hit 1000 to 1200 cc’s as an adult, which is fairly normative for many pre-teen humans), probably would have hit 5” 6’ tall as an adult. He actually is conceded by many to be very human from the neck down, has an established bridge indicating a projecting nose, and much more. The narrow spinal canal seems to have been an issue of debate. Yet even being small, it is still within the modern human range (albeit, at the bottom end of the range.)

The differences are best seen in this "flesh on bone" model of Turkana boy:

The most obvious is the brow ridges and forehead. Notice how the forehead sweeps straight back from the brow ridges. That isn't seen in modern humans. Turkana boy couldn't have worn a baseball cap without having it wrap around under his eyebrows. He is not a modern human. There are other less subtle differences, such as the lack of a protruding lower chin.

Notice how the forehead raises up from the brow ridge, not backwards. Notice how the chin protrudes forward at the bottom of the jaw.

Turkana boy was not an anatomically modern human.

IMHO many fossils of Erectus are just humans (not Java however). Albeit an early “Variety” of human, perhaps even one that died off.

That is exactly what a transitional fossil would be. Since all species in the Homo genus are considered "human", they would be human, but not Homo sapiens.

In the human relatives, emerging genetic possibilities eventually favored the variety we call modern human anatomically but that does not constitute a transition from ape-kind.

Then why don't we find anatomically modern humans that date back to H. erectus or the Australopithecines?

Of the five skulls found in Dmanisi, Georgia, two actually look as human as any modern,

How so? Why don't you show us which two, and we will see. First thing I will look at is the chin, in case you are wondering.

 

[Loudmouth]

1) An archaeopteryx is a very bird-like dinosaur or a very dinosaur-like bird.

Just a bird! We have since found actual birds from earlier. Yes this variety of bird does have some anatomical similar to some reptiles but that does not mean one came from the other.

Then what would? What features are you looking for in a transitional if not a combination of avian and dinosaur features? Shouldn't a transitional have a mixture of dinosaur features not found in modern birds and bird features not found in earlier dinosaurs?

Homology is not science it is a form of taxanomic classification. Bats have wings (mammals) that does NOT MEAN that they were once birds or that birds came from bats.

Why would you ever confuse the two?
Bird wing:

Bat wing:

2) A homo erectus is a human with a whole lot of non human attributes.

Again some anatomical similarities does not = one came from the other (come on just think for yourself and step outside the predetermined box).

THEN WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR IN A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL???????

3) A tiktaalik is a fish with a whole load of tetrapod traits.

Not true...this is an assumption based conclusion.

You can see for yourself. Tiktaalik is a fish with fins that have tetrapod bones in them.

And I did not say these do not count. The question is what do they count as (here is where the human opinion factor kicks in)?

They count as fossils with a combination of features from two divergent taxa, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.

What you seem to miss is that the theory of evolution predicts which transitional fossils you should see, and which you should not see. The theory predicts that the fossils will fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. Each fossil is a test of those predictions. When we continually find the combination of features that evolution says we should find, and not the ones the theory says we should not see, then the evidence supports the theory. What creationists fail to understand is that if we found specific transitional fossils, say a mammal to bird transitional, then this would FALSIFY the theory of evolution.

So you see, the transitional nature of the fossils is not assumed because of evolution. You can determine what mixtures of features a fossil has without using evolution. The evidence for the theory of evolution is that the transitional fossils fall into the predicted phylogeny.

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

A perfect description of what happens in the creationist echo chamber.

 

[The Cadet]

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Isn't there something about the one bringing up the nazis losing the argument by default?

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't there something about the one bringing up the nazis losing the argument by default?

Playing the Godwin Card.

 

[pshun2404]

Shemjaza...you said "Prions and viruses are parasites on life without being alive themselves, they are chemicals that re-produce with he right chemical surroundings. I don't see any step that requires any kind of life miracle."

Neither is functional nor has any effect except in the presence of life within a living system (both in fact occur in cells) a prion is a misfolded protein and in light of the millions of proteins made and employed by living systems they are in fact actually very rare. I cannot remember the source so take it as hearsay but I read once their occurrence is less than .001% however when they do occur they appear to spread a number of misfoldings but the problem may actually be something defective in the DNA transcription translation mechanism (all is just theorerical at this point)

Viruses, which I believe are the minutest parts of disintegrated organisms containing the tiniest portion of RNA or DNA, again only operate in the presence of life within the context of a living cell. "the right chemical surroundings) does not work...it is too vague...it ONLY works in the context of a living system with all its functional and interdependent subsystems in place.

 

[pshun2404]

The differences are best seen in this "flesh on bone" model of Turkana boy

That’s imaginary science fiction…how can that show us anything real?

Turkana boy was not an anatomically modern human.

True but why continuously misrepresent what I say…I did not say he was a “modern” human. Yes I recognize there are some anatomical variances with the skull (just part of this unsuccessful variety) much like Neanderthal (another unsuccessful variety of human).

That is exactly what a transitional fossil would be. Since all species in the Homo genus are considered "human", they would be human, but not Homo sapiens.

Yes I know the arbitrary attachment of the label “Homo” (from the Latin for man) to make the indoctrinated believe these are all human but I do not believe this is demonstrated by the evidence (Home Habalis for example)…

Then why don't we find anatomically modern humans that date back to H. erectus or the Australopithecines?

Re-read what you quoted from me… it says “emerging genetic possibilities” eventually favored the variety we call modern human anatomically…only Euro YECs think Adam looked like a modern whiteman…he may have looked more like Neanderthal or even Erectus (from which no true topical characteristics can be derived despite the many propaganda images used for imprinting) but he was not an ape, apes were a whole different kind (species) of primate, one that lacked the intelligence and physical coordination of humankind.

Then why don't we find anatomically modern humans that date back to H. erectus or the Australopithecines?

Again I did not say anatomically modern (so stop twisting the words and hear the reasoning). There are human remains (some fossils) from this time as well as many other indicators (cooking, ornamentation, tools, etc.), only this evidence (because it refutes the accepted mantra of no humans at this time) gets interpreted as being related to the ape remains (to give the appearance they were evolving into man)….I will give you one example here and I hope for you that you will see how the provisional interpretation was in fact using the theory to give the data its meaning instead of the other way around…letting the data shape the theory….

When the Leakys (the mom and dad, who I respect and have a learned a great deal from) were in the Olduvai gorge they found a number of stone tools, a series of footprints leaving the site (footprints that lacked the separated big toe or rear thumb joint of apes), and a monolithic structure that appears to many as having been constructed, and then about 750 feet away (almost a football field) they found the remains of a young australopithicene.

Because the theory demands no humans existed at this time they concluded that the ape and its family must have made and used these tools, and the footprints are evidence they had evolved.

But is that really what we see here? No! We do not have any way to KNOW the ape or its family did either but the possibility that mankind the tool maker left and possibly even killed the ape (maybe even had dinner) was not even considered.

A perfect analogy to this would be if a few 100,000 years from now some other intelligent creatures came along and all they found was a trail and some old power tools I left behind….and then about a football field away they found the remains of someone’s pet dog, Now being the intelligent authorities that they represent they conclude the dog and his family walked upright and made and used power tools. You see its quite obvious right? NOT! That’s ridiculous is what it is…assumption based conclusionism is not fact.

Add these indicators of earlier humans (much earlier than the theory has allowed) combined with the human remains found in Java and Peking (and elsewhere) and we must ask if we should not just admit this is evidence of humankind AND ape instead of interpreting it as “ape-man”.

 

[[serious]]

Neither is functional nor has any effect except in the presence of life within a living system (both in fact occur in cells) a prion is a misfolded protein and in light of the millions of proteins made and employed by living systems they are in fact actually very rare. I cannot remember the source so take it as hearsay but I read once their occurrence is less than .001% however when they do occur they appear to spread a number of misfoldings but the problem may actually be something defective in the DNA transcription translation mechanism (all is just theorerical at this point)

Viruses, which I believe are the minutest parts of disintegrated organisms containing the tiniest portion of RNA or DNA, again only operate in the presence of life within the context of a living cell. "the right chemical surroundings) does not work...it is too vague...it ONLY works in the context of a living system with all its functional and interdependent subsystems in place.

Reminder, what you said was:
"There is no naturally occurring DNA and no "self-replicating" RNA outside of living systems ... There are also no functional proteins found outside of living systems"

Now, if you think that a virus doesn't exist outside of living systems, or is somehow a living system, or isn't self replicating, well, we disagree. It clearly exists outside of living systems, is not alive, and reproduces. If we are broadening our definitions so much as to make viruses not run afoul of your claim, there are all manner of other things we could look at. Liquid water has not been observed outside living systems under such a broad definition of living system.

 

[pshun2404]

Now, if you think that a virus doesn't exist outside of living systems, or is somehow a living system, or isn't self replicating, well, we disagree. It clearly exists outside of living systems, is not alive, and reproduces. If we are broadening our definitions so much as to make viruses not run afoul of your claim, there are all manner of other things we could look at. Liquid water has not been observed outside living systems under such a broad definition of living system.

Why did you twist what I said to say something not said to support or reinforce your understanding?

I never said viruses do not exist outside of living systems. Why do you make up fictional representations and then believe them as true? I said they do not OPERATE outside of living systems which they do not. It only reproduces when it plugs into a living cells transcription.translation mechanism.

Your last two comments are utterly absurd illogical conclusions which can only be made to appear true if one accepts the fictional representation you created. Nothing I posted in my response is untrue. Your original point did not even address what you were trying to address

 

[lasthero]

A perfect analogy to this would be if a few 100,000 years from now some other intelligent creatures came along and all they found was a trail and some old power tools I left behind….and then about a football field away they found the remains of someone’s pet dog, Now being the intelligent authorities that they represent they conclude the dog and his family walked upright and made and used power tools. You see its quite obvious right? NOT! That’s ridiculous is what it is…assumption based conclusionism is not fact.

That's a terrible analogy. If you're hypothetical intelligent creatures concluded that dogs used power tools, they'd be idiots - you can tell from the way dogs are built, just looking at their skeletons, that they're incapable of using power tools or walking upright. Even if you had absolutely no idea what a dog was or what it was like and your only experience with them was a fossil, you could still figure out, just by the way power tools are designed, that they weren't made for dogs.

 

[pshun2404]

That's a terrible analogy. If you're hypothetical intelligent creatures concluded that dogs used power tools, they'd be idiots - you can tell from the way dogs are built, just looking at their skeletons, that they're incapable of using power tools or walking upright. Even if you had absolutely no idea what a dog was or what it was like and your only experience with them was a fossil, you could still figure out, just by the way power tools are designed, that they weren't made for dogs.

The point is there is no reason to conclude some creature 750 feet away is no evidence at all that they could make stone tools let alone use them and then assume, though knowing this is apekind, that they have feet with no separated big toe or rear thumb joint ( a huge leap must be made ignoring all other logical possibility...so no, not so terrible)

 

[pshun2404]

Now I know this approach to divert from the OP is usually successful but I will address this issue of Archaeopteryx.

In Richard Monastersky’s “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17. (1993) one fossilized bird from a much earlier time than Archaeopteryx was found in Mongolia and yes it had claws and teeth, but it was still just a bird. In addition some modern birds also have a claw or claws on their wing but they are just birds. And what about Protoavis found in Texas? It is a bird with teeth from millions and millions of years before Arche…is Arche really just a transitional form that shows a certain kind of reptile evolved from birds?

Researcher and evolutionist Dr. Sankar Chatterjee, the Curator of Paleontology at Texas Tech University, recorded that Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle along with “a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs.” See Alun Anderson's "Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5. It certainly does threaten it because it means Avians existed 210,000,000 years ago. But who’s counting?


Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020, tell us “in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." Also Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones such as a bird has. In fact P. Moody in, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197, points out that “other extinct birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)." And A.S. Romer, who actually saw the fossils in his Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (1968), p. 144, reveals that despite the common media presentations "This Jurassic bird stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later `proper' birds than before."


Conclusion? "It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." J. Ostrom, Science News, 112 (1977), p. 198.

 

[pshun2404]

Isn't there something about the one bringing up the nazis losing the argument by default?

No because it is not about nazis its about the use of propaganda technique to sell an idea (done every day by Political rhetoricians and Wall Street Ad men right here in America by Dems and Repubs)

 

[pshun2404]

[QUOTE="Loudmouth, post: 68191832, member:

Playing the Godwin Card.[/QUOTE]

Hillarious! See there's that humor again. Love it....

 

[pshun2404]

A perfect description of what happens in the creationist echo chamber

Yes I hate it when they do it also....good thing I have never brought up "creationist" persons in support of my views eh?

All Tiktaalik fossils we have are pressure flattened, so we really have no way of knowing how robust its rib cage was or was not….I see it as an early tetrapod nothing more. Axolotls, neotenous salamanders from mexico, have both lungs and (external) gills that were functional when young. And newts...start of with gills then they change to lungs (and they are not in transition only maturation). Then there are fish that also have a kind of oxygen holding sack (like Lungfish and Mudskippers) but the O2 comes in through the gills and is stored there...no creatures have functional lungs and functional gills operating simultaneously (they require two completely different respiratory systems)...

Sorry but I am getting tired its 2 am here, been up since 7 am...have a good night...

 

[Shemjaza]

I think others have respond well, but I think pshun2404 is confused about the definition of transitional. A transitional species spans two categories, it is not necessarily ancestral to those categories.

Both Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are transitional, but animals closer to true birds and fossil tracks indicating land tetrapods have been found that are older. Animal lineages don't form nice neat tree diagrams, you'd expect it to be murky at the points where the branches intersect.

 

[[serious]]

Now, if you think that a virus doesn't exist outside of living systems, or is somehow a living system, or isn't self replicating, well, we disagree. It clearly exists outside of living systems, is not alive, and reproduces. If we are broadening our definitions so much as to make viruses not run afoul of your claim, there are all manner of other things we could look at. Liquid water has not been observed outside living systems under such a broad definition of living system.

Why did you twist what I said to say something not said to support or reinforce your understanding?

I never said viruses do not exist outside of living systems. Why do you make up fictional representations and then believe them as true? I said they do not OPERATE outside of living systems which they do not. It only reproduces when it plugs into a living cells transcription.translation mechanism.

Your last two comments are utterly absurd illogical conclusions which can only be made to appear true if one accepts the fictional representation you created. Nothing I posted in my response is untrue. Your original point did not even address what you were trying to address

You are contorting yourself all over the place. To review, your initial claim was:
"There is no naturally occurring DNA andno "self-replicating" RNA outside of living systems ... There are also no functional proteins found outside of living systems"

Now even if we accept the shifted goalposts that virus RNA doesn't count as self replicating because it utilizes cellular machinery during infection, we are still left with that silliness about proteins. For many viruses, the protein coats primary function is to protect the virus when it is outside of a living system. Trying to iteratively walk back your statements doesn't usually work well.