A cup of Java

[pshun2404]

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.

Can't you see that if Archaeopteryx, said to be the "alleged" semi-reptilian source of birds, is pre-dated by actual birds by millions of years, then the "accepted" mantra (spewed out regularly by the consensus oriented pedagogues in media presentations) is a LIE? That they are WRONG! Secondly because some anatomical features are similar or even shared does not equal that one became the other (in either direction)...Homology is a system of taxanomic classification not a science. All creatures have faces but that does not equal that they all stemmed from the first creature with a face...and Genes being chronologically laid down over millions of years is a hypothesis only...a way of interpreting the evidence (bit not the only way and not the established "truth"). We share over 50% of our genome with bananas but that does not mean they are our ancient cousins.Naturally all primates share a greater number of genes in common but that also only means to be one you have one set and to be another you have a different set.

If we are to follow the reasoning of a chonological Genome "hypothesis" and we KNOW that human telomeres are 10 kilobases long while a chimps in 23 kilobases long, and we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and they 24, their penis is fully bone and ours still unformed cartilage, and so on (and there are more) then according to that logic, chimpanzees evolved from humankind. Can't you see how that reasoning is actually not logical based on what is actual? I know you are programmed to instantly throw up a wall that will not allow the logic to penetrate but just try...please?

 

[pshun2404]

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

No, not confused at all, at least one would have had to come first, and it is your camp who uses these examples as ancestral not me. I have shown and argued that such a conclusion is at best one interpretation one could give to the evidence (others being equally reasonable) and at worst an invalid derivation (which by nature carries forward into other conclusions based on it)...nothing in Tiktaalik is a fish...yes homologically there is the indication of a fin and perhaps one can interpret what they see as gills but all the evidence taken objectively as a whole says tetrapod....and only those trying to prove the pre-conceived notions like common descent and transitionals will interpret it as a semi fish/tetrapod...if one were not infected by or indoctrinated (for decades) with these notions how would such a person interpret what they see? A unique and different creature separate from both? Certainly an equally plausible option, wouldn't you say?

 

[Shemjaza]

It doesn't make any sense to respond to a post clearly stating that Transitional species are not necessarily ancestral with a post accusing me of saying they are.

People assumed most classic transitional fossils were ancestral because the ancestral species would be transitional. But as i said, non ancestral transitional species would be perfectly expected in an evolutionary model.

The pattern of genetic changes found in humans and chimps show the same picture as the basic bone structure. This isn't some kind of Platonic truth, it's evidence and there's a lot of it. Humans are not descended from chimps and chimps aren't descended from humans... it so happens that the chimp is probably more similar to the ancestral population, but I guarantee there are some traits that went on to become the branch "homo" that are different to the branch "pan".

Your comments about the Tiktaalik are equally unfounded... paleontologist don't just say "I'm a scientist take my word for it" they have their reasoning, in detail and those reasons can be checked by other scientists examining the evidence. Your attempt re-badge the continued evidence for evolution as propaganda is childish.

 

[[serious]]

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

No, not confused at all, at least one would have had to come first, and it is your camp who uses these examples as ancestral not me. I have shown and argued that such a conclusion is at best one interpretation one could give to the evidence (others being equally reasonable) and at worst an invalid derivation (which by nature carries forward into other conclusions based on it)...nothing in Tiktaalik is a fish...yes homologically there is the indication of a fin and perhaps one can interpret what they see as gills but all the evidence taken objectively as a whole says tetrapod....and only those trying to prove the pre-conceived notions like common descent and transitionals will interpret it as a semi fish/tetrapod...if one were not infected by or indoctrinated (for decades) with these notions how would such a person interpret what they see? A unique and different creature separate from both? Certainly an equally plausible option, wouldn't you say?

You are most certainly confused. No individual fossil is ever assumed to be the precise individual, or even the percice species, from which modern species are descended.

Example

• [serious]
• Jun 28, 2015

Archeopteryx, which I misspelled, is a branch between clear theropods and clear birds, but need not go extinct before the arrival of clear birds.

 

[pshun2404]

It doesn't make any sense to respond to a post clearly stating that Transitional species are not necessarily ancestral with a post accusing me of saying they are.

Perhaps that is not what you were saying but is this not the standard belief espoused by most people in your group? That these are proof that one type of creature (say a fish) became another type of creature (say an amphibian perhaps) and that this amphibious creature (which is an ancestor of modern amphibians) was demonstrative that they were originally fish (this being “transitional”, i.e., in-between somewhere?)?

Did I get that implication incorrect or not? In your opinion, IS this creature being used as evidence that fish became amphibians (representing an in-between or transitional species) or not? A simple yes or no would suffice for me???



People assumed most classic transitional fossils were ancestral because the ancestral species would be transitional. But as I said, non- ancestral transitional species would be perfectly expected in an evolutionary model.

Of course non-transitional species exist in the evolutionary model. That has never been contested! Even YEC creationists believe in NON-transitional kinds (species) of creatures. But as for your first statement here, I totally realize that is how it is assumed. It is generally assumed that any one which comes prior within the same limb of the theorized tree is ancestral, and that having even earlier ancestors.


The pattern of genetic changes found in humans and chimps show the same picture as the basic bone structure. This isn't some kind of Platonic truth, it's evidence and there's a lot of it. Humans are not descended from chimps and chimps aren't descended from humans... it so happens that the chimp is probably more similar to the ancestral population, but I guarantee there are some traits that went on to become the branch "homo" that are different to the branch "pan".


Good point if one puts much stock in branches. And as for “pan”, wasn’t he a transitional form?

The tree was imagined and made up and it happens to be a useful tool for illustrating a commonly held position that really hasn’t panned out yet over 150 years, but who knows maybe in another 150 or 1,000 or until everyone is thoroughly convinced.

I would say the chimp is more similar to ITS ancestors than humans, and humans are more similar to THEIR ancestors than chimps, but so far there is no evidence they both shared one in common (only provisionally interpreted evidence…like with Java when the ape skull cap was united with the human femur and the two human skulls found at the same site were purposely hidden and ignored…).


Your comments about the Tiktaalik are equally unfounded... paleontologist don't just say "I'm a scientist take my word for it" they have their reasoning, in detail and those reasons can be checked by other scientists examining the evidence. Your attempt re-badge the continued evidence for evolution as propaganda is childish.

No! Evolution is real. Darwin’s concept of slow gradual phyletic morphism has not only NOT ever been proven, but not demonstrated, observed, and the only tests we can intelligently design cannot make it happen (though God knows they have tried so many many times but failed).

And yes somethings can be (and should be taught) said for evolution, even the Darwinian model, but when something not true (like abiogenesis or trans-phyletic morphism),and not demonstrated, is presented into the innocent inquiring minds of generations of youth by drill and repetition (associated with falsely derived images on purpose) as if it is the truth (or even as the most reasonable coloring all oppositions schools of thought with negative adjectives) and then it is reinforced and imprinted into minds as truth, via non-factually based media like “Walking with Dinosaurs” and many others…THEN YES, this is classic propaganda technique (a subject I did a five year study on for understanding how it used in advertising and politics)

 

[pshun2404]

Archeopteryx, which I misspelled, is a branch between clear theropods and clear birds, but need not go extinct before the arrival of clear birds.

I do not think so but I do understand how one could be convinced of that and I never said they had to go extinct first...but if fully evolved birds came first (which they did) then Arche are not a branch between anything just an unsuccessful variety nothing more (and birds are not dinosaurs)

 

[[serious]]

Archeopteryx, which I misspelled, is a branch between clear theropods and clear birds, but need not go extinct before the arrival of clear birds.

I do not think so but I do understand how one could be convinced of that and I never said they had to go extinct first...but if fully evolved birds came first (which they did) then Arche are not a branch between anything just an unsuccessful variety nothing more (and birds are not dinosaurs)

Ok, so if you are fine with them not going extinct before unambiguous birds showed up, what's the issue again? You aren't thinking that something new can't evolve until all the old dies, are you? That's an old canard commonly expressed as "but why are there still monkeys?"

 

[Shemjaza]

It doesn't make any sense to respond to a post clearly stating that Transitional species are not necessarily ancestral with a post accusing me of saying they are.

Perhaps that is not what you were saying but is this not the standard belief espoused by most people in your group? That these are proof that one type of creature (say a fish) became another type of creature (say an amphibian perhaps) and that this amphibious creature (which is an ancestor of modern amphibians) was demonstrative that they were originally fish (this being “transitional”, i.e., in-between somewhere?)?

Did I get that implication incorrect or not? In your opinion, IS this creature being used as evidence that fish became amphibians (representing an in-between or transitional species) or not? A simple yes or no would suffice for me???

Yes. If both groups were once a single group then animals who were not clearly either group, ie transitionals, would be found in a particular set of layers.

Can you see how a transitional fossil in the right layer is evidence that the groups split, while not necessarily being an actual ancestor to either modern group?

People assumed most classic transitional fossils were ancestral because the ancestral species would be transitional. But as I said, non- ancestral transitional species would be perfectly expected in an evolutionary model.

Of course non-transitional species exist in the evolutionary model. That has never been contested! Even YEC creationists believe in NON-transitional kinds (species) of creatures. But as for your first statement here, I totally realize that is how it is assumed. It is generally assumed that any one which comes prior within the same limb of the theorized tree is ancestral, and that having even earlier ancestors.

I didn't say non-transitional species, I said non-ancestral.

The pattern of genetic changes found in humans and chimps show the same picture as the basic bone structure. This isn't some kind of Platonic truth, it's evidence and there's a lot of it. Humans are not descended from chimps and chimps aren't descended from humans... it so happens that the chimp is probably more similar to the ancestral population, but I guarantee there are some traits that went on to become the branch "homo" that are different to the branch "pan".

Good point if one puts much stock in branches. And as for “pan”, wasn’t he a transitional form?

The tree was imagined and made up and it happens to be a useful tool for illustrating a commonly held position that really hasn’t panned out yet over 150 years, but who knows maybe in another 150 or 1,000 or until everyone is thoroughly convinced.

I would say the chimp is more similar to ITS ancestors than humans, and humans are more similar to THEIR ancestors than chimps, but so far there is no evidence they both shared one in common (only provisionally interpreted evidence…like with Java when the ape skull cap was united with the human femur and the two human skulls found at the same site were purposely hidden and ignored…).

Care to back up your conspiracy theories with actual evidence?

Your comments about the Tiktaalik are equally unfounded... paleontologist don't just say "I'm a scientist take my word for it" they have their reasoning, in detail and those reasons can be checked by other scientists examining the evidence. Your attempt re-badge the continued evidence for evolution as propaganda is childish.

No! Evolution is real. Darwin’s concept of slow gradual phyletic morphism has not only NOT ever been proven, but not demonstrated, observed, and the only tests we can intelligently design cannot make it happen (though God knows they have tried so many many times but failed).

And yes somethings can be (and should be taught) said for evolution, even the Darwinian model, but when something not true (like abiogenesis or trans-phyletic morphism),and not demonstrated, is presented into the innocent inquiring minds of generations of youth by drill and repetition (associated with falsely derived images on purpose) as if it is the truth (or even as the most reasonable coloring all oppositions schools of thought with negative adjectives) and then it is reinforced and imprinted into minds as truth, via non-factually based media like “Walking with Dinosaurs” and many others…THEN YES, this is classic propaganda technique (a subject I did a five year study on for understanding how it used in advertising and politics)

Darwin was wrong about a great many things, he didn't even know about genetics or the mechanisms of inheritance.

Given all your fundamental misunderstandings about the current state of evolutionary research, you'll excuse me if I don't just take you at your word that it's all "false". Present evidence, not logical fallacies, conspiracy theories and scoffing.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

What is not real? The fossil itself has all of the features I am describing.

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).

None of which casts any doubt on the transitional nature of Turkana boy. He has a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. That makes him a transitional fossil.

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)…

If it is arbitrary, why do you keep using the label of "human" and "ape" to cast doubt on the transitional nature of these fossils? You are the one drawing an arbitrary line between humans and apes.

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.

Again, you are using an arbitrary line between humans and other apes, a line that is crossed by transitional fossils.

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.

Do you have other candidates from that time period?

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”.

Then what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with other apes?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Darwin explained it quite well, 150 years ago.

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

That's what Tiktaalik is, a side branch that has preserved an adaptation from an earlier evolutionary step.