A transitional series from 0.01% of the fossil record

[npetreley]

Seeing as this is some sort of dog or wolf or something, this is actually from the 0.01% of the fossil record not the 99.9% that nobody can find a transitional series for. But since it was such a remarkably well documented example of evolution, I thought I'd share it.

Notice how the eyes do not appear until the 6th species, which proves that irreducibly complex organs can evolve on their own.

 

[choccy]

....................not the 99.9% that nobody can find a transitional series for.

What was that about bearing false witness again? Oh, I see, it's a joke, that makes it allright, doesn't it?

Choccy

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
the 99.9% that nobody can find a transitional series for.

So, Nick, is this series part of the 99.9% or the 0.1%?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Seeing as this is some sort of dog or wolf or something, this is actually from the 0.01% of the fossil record not the 99.9% that nobody can find a transitional series for.

Wow! I've been looking for you... I posted a thread for you a while back... it is One transitional fossil from 99% of the fossil record... Appears to be just what you are looking for!!!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


So, Nick, is this series part of the 99.9% or the 0.1%?

What series? I don't see any there.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by choccy
What was that about bearing false witness again? Oh, I see, it's a joke, that makes it allright, doesn't it?

Choccy

Are you saying anyone answered my challenge? Because nobody has even come close.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


What series? I don't see any there.

Why is that not a series?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Are you saying anyone answered my challenge? Because nobody has even come close.

He might have been saying that you said nobody could find a transitional series from the larger part of the fossil record - which is untrue. I don't remember you or anyone else bringing up your challenge in this thread.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"Why is that not a series?"
Damn, those goal posts sure do move fast

 

[RufusAtticus]

Well I guess goal posts get wings before pigs do.

 

[Morat]

  You know, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "NYAH-NYAH-NYAH I don't hear you!" is obnoxious in children.

   Seeing it in adults is worse.

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Is it me or has anyone else noticed that 100% - 99.9% = 0.01% in Nick's world?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

Why is that not a series?

I don't know, why is it?

I'm saying I don't see one there. I see shapes that differ, some slightly, some more than slightly. Assuming even that none of the shapes were distorted as part of the fossilization, then so what? At worst you have some fossils with different shapes and the rest is imagination. At best you have a possible case of microevolution, which even creationists agree happens. Big deal.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Is it me or has anyone else noticed that 100% - 99.9% = 0.01% in Nick's world?

What, now you're going to try to weasel out of providing evidence from 99.9% of the fossil record based on the fact that I'm rounding/truncating?

Fine. I suppose if I start referring to it as 99.98% of the fossil record, that will make the challenge OH so much easier for you to meet, right?

And why 99.98%? Heaven forbid I call it 99.99%, because then you'll point out that some of the creationist sites say 0.0125% of the fossil record represents vertebrates, and accuse me of exaggerating about the remainder of the fossil record.

What's that word I'm looking for to describe someone who makes issues out of things like this? It's like a word in golf, I think...putts, or something like that....

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
  You know, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "NYAH-NYAH-NYAH I don't hear you!" is obnoxious in children.

   Seeing it in adults is worse.

 

This from a guy who still hasn't admitted his lies about Ken Ham's radio spot.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm saying I don't see one there.

So a chronological succession of forms is not a series? Okay....

I see shapes that differ, some slightly, some more than slightly.

So there are morphological transitions!

At worst you have some fossils with different shapes and the rest is imagination.

I don’t think a man who believed that we all will get a third-set of teeth if we live long enough, is capable of determining what is imagination or not.

At best you have a possible case of microevolution, which even creationists agree happens.

So you are admitting that this is an evolutionary transition from the fossil record. In your expertise, is it part of the 99.9% or the 0.1%? That question still hasn’t been answered?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
What, now you're going to try to weasel out of providing evidence from 99.9% of the fossil record based on the fact that I'm rounding/truncating?

I knew you would try to claim that you were rounding. But I don't buy it.

As far as I can see, you're the only one trying to weasle out of the question. Goalposts don't get wings on their own.

The question:
Is that foram series, part of the 99.9% or the 0.1% of the fossil record?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

So a chronological succession of forms is not a series? Okay....

Who proved it is chronological?

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
So there are morphological transitions!

Who proved they were morphological changes? The fossils LOOK different. That doesn't mean they WERE different, or were different in the way the fossils suggest. You're interpreting.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I don’t think a man who believed that we all will get a third-set of teeth if we live long enough, is capable of determining what is imagination or not.

I don't think that someone who intentionally misrepresents what I said is a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the so-called evidence for evolution.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
So you are admitting that this is an evolutionary transition from the fossil record. In your expertise, is it part of the 99.9% or the 0.1%? That question still hasn’t been answered?

This is not even clearly a transition, let alone the kind I asked for (it isn't even close). And if you're going to be a hard-nose about figures, then it's 99.98% and 0.01%, not 99.9% and 0.1%.

 

[npetreley]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/xnv1n6.asp

95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish.

Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.75%).

95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%).

The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish.

95% of the very few land vertebrates found consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)

95% of the mammal fossils were deposited during the Ice Age.

Given the above, it should be extraordinarily easy to find a transitional series that meets the criteria of my challenge. Yet where is that series? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris? Anyone? Still waiting...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Given the above it should be and is extraordinarily easy to find a transitional series in the invertebrate fossil record. Where is that series? Well, several have been posted to your attention, so you need claim no longer that no one can find such a series from "99%" of the fossil record, as this would be very misleading.

As for your challenge, considering what you are asking for, you would probably be best off to go to the paleontology department of your local university or college. Berkeley is close to you, right? I would amend my challenge to remove the "NO POLYPLOIDS" nonsense first, so they don't laugh you out of the building, but they should be able to dig up a class-level transition from the fossil record with some pretty smooth-grained transitions, and show them to you in the journals kept in the library. If you would be willing to pay for their time and foot the expenses for the trip, they might be willing to take you around to the various museums and university collections to take photographs of the fossils that represent those transitions.

I would encourage you not to waste your money until you gain at least the minimum willingness to actually consider the evidence.


By the way, a cheaper alternative is to have a glance at what Kathleen Hunt compiled from the vertebrate fossil record on the Talk Origins web-site. I know it is from the wrong 99% of the fossil record, but it should be good enough for an amateur who has a legitimate concern that the creationists who claim "no transitional fossils" might actually be telling the truth...