A transitional series from 0.01% of the fossil record

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
Who proved it is chronological?

Well the paleontologists who did the research. But I forget that you don't trust science.

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.

LOL. Then what geological mechanism do you propose just happened to change these microscopic fossils in such a manner that they just look like evolution has happened. What about the other 300+ fossil species in the foram record?

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.

LOL. Nice try. From this thread.

"Here's an example of a prediction based on information from the Bible. The lifespan of people before the flood was up to and above 900 years. Even if you eliminate cavities, our teeth tend to wear down, rot, or break over a period of about 100 years. If God designed us to live up to 900 years or more, one would expect that God would have either designed our teeth to be stronger or designed us to get new teeth.

"As it turns out, people who live well past the age of 100 DO actually get a new set of teeth. Some people even get them as young as their 80s."

Now did someone else make this statement on Christian Forums and your home board using your ID or did you actually make it?

This is not even clearly a transition

I doubt you'd allow anything to be a clear transition to you. Like I said, goalposts don't get wings on their own. I don't care if you ever accept this transitional record. It just shows the lurkers how bankrupt your accusations are.

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%.

Who said anything about your silly challenge? I'm just asking if the foram series, which I posted an example of, is part of the 99.99% or the 0.01% of the fossil record?

BTW: If your are going to math, maybe you should get it right. 100% (exact) - 0.0125% = 99.9875%. 99.9875% rounded to two decimals is 99.99% not 99.98%. Furthermore, 99.9875% rounded to one decimal is 100.0%, not the 99.9% which you claim was the result of rounding. Maybe you should check your own work before you try to correct mine.

 

[Morat]

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

   Nick, the one thing you've proven is that "spotting lies" isn't exactly a strength with you. *snicker*

  As for your challenge: I like it. It's a great challenge. It says "God made the invertebrates, but the vertebrates muddled along by themselves." It's nice to see you admit to human evolution.

 

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


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.

Well, if these fossils with a gradual transition from one shape to another over a period of time doesn't satisfy you, then what will?

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

Hah, okay. That's pretty desperate. Those aren't bacteria you're looking at. This so-called "challenge" is fast reminding me of Dr. Dino's standing "$250,000" offer.

 

[blader]

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.

If they look different, why can we not conclude they were different? In other words, can you tell us what DOES constitute proof for morphological difference, so we can find a transitional series for your flying goalposts? The proof should be something "very easy" for scientists to provide, right?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Well the paleontologists who did the research. But I forget that you don't trust science.

I didn't say I don't trust science. I didn't even say I don't trust scientists. I don't trust evolutionists. As there's some question as to whether these two fields even overlap, I don't see your point.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

LOL. Then what geological mechanism do you propose just happened to change these microscopic fossils in such a manner that they just look like evolution has happened. What about the other 300+ fossil species in the foram record?

How do you know they are separate species? Why is your definition of species relevant? What makes you think you know that any of them changed? Who the fsck cares? I've seen mold on twinkies more interesting than your opinion of fossils.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

LOL. Nice try. From this thread.

"Here's an example of a prediction based on information from the Bible. The lifespan of people before the flood was up to and above 900 years. Even if you eliminate cavities, our teeth tend to wear down, rot, or break over a period of about 100 years. If God designed us to live up to 900 years or more, one would expect that God would have either designed our teeth to be stronger or designed us to get new teeth.

"As it turns out, people who live well past the age of 100 DO actually get a new set of teeth. Some people even get them as young as their 80s."

Now did someone else make this statement on Christian Forums and your home board using your ID or did you actually make it?

Of course I made it. Now here's what you said..

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'm not saying that the statement isn't true -- I DO believe we all would get a third set of teeth. But you were taking that out of context. It was a prediction that is met by the evidence, not an assertion that we all get a third set of teeth.

Now that you've provided the context, you can see that someone had implied that you can't make predictions based on the Bible or creation and confirm those predictions with evidence. I was showing that you CAN. Based on the longevity of people pre-flood described in the Bible, you could predict that people would get multiple sets of teeth if they got old enough. And the evidence shows that some people DO get a third set of teeth when they get very old. So what I said not only makes perfect sense, it is verified by the evidence.

And unlike your evidence for evolution, the evidence that some people get a third set of teeth doesn't take any imagination. It just doesn't occur in everyone who reaches 100 years old. But if the third set normally comes in at about 120 years old (or whenever) and these people are getting them early, then what we're seeing is perfectly normal. If you want to ridicule that, then I'll be glad to give you even more ammunition. I also predict all normal people would get a fourth, fifth, sixth, and more sets of teeth if they lived long enough. Unfortunately, we barely live long enough to test the prediction of a third set, so there's no way to test this latter prediction.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

I doubt you'd allow anything to be a clear transition to you. Like I said, goalposts don't get wings on their own.

Of course not. YOU had to create a new thread that moves them because you couldn't come up with anything that could reach MY goalposts, which are perfectly reasonable but impossible to meet because evolution isn't true.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

I don't care if you ever accept this transitional record. It just shows the lurkers how bankrupt your accusations are.

Bankrupt? You mean as in having 0 (zero) Zilch, goose-egg? As in the number of transitional series you've been able to produce that meets my simple criteria? And since you have to make up transitions out of nowhere, you, sir, are not only bankrupt, but overdrawn.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Who said anything about your silly challenge?
Silly challenge?

Oh, yeah, it's REALLY silly to expect to see a significant transition from 99.98% of the fossil record. How could I ask for such an outrageous thing?

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

I'm just asking if the foram series, which I posted an example of, is part of the 99.99% or the 0.01% of the fossil record?

Is the picture a transitional? Unless it's microevolution, I doubt it. Is the picture from the fossil record? Probably. I'll take your word from it that it's not from your living room. Does that make you happy?

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

BTW: If your are going to math, maybe you should get it right. 100% (exact) - 0.0125% = 99.9875%. 99.9875% rounded to two decimals is 99.99% not 99.98%. Furthermore, 99.9875% rounded to one decimal is 100.0%, not the 99.9% which you claim was the result of rounding. Maybe you should check your own work before you try to correct mine.

Whoopie, you can understand precision.

Look, genius, I thought I made it clear that I chose to truncate rather than round to give you an excuse for being unable to answer my challenge. After all, if you have 99.99% of the fossil record to work with, then you should be able to produce thousands of transitions that meet my challenge. But if you only have 99.98% to work with, it's perfeclty understandable why nobody has been able to produce such a transition.

Putts.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

If they look different, why can we not conclude they were different? In other words, can you tell us what DOES constitute proof for morphological difference, so we can find a transitional series for your flying goalposts? The proof should be something "very easy" for scientists to provide, right?

You guys are the ones trying to move the goalposts. I specified MY goalposts very clearly.

Here, I reposted the challenge just in case you would have trouble finding it.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19340

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


You guys are the ones trying to move the goalposts. I specified MY goalposts very clearly.

Here, I reposted the challenge just in case you would have trouble finding it.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19340

Nice try, but I didn't ask why are you moving the goal posts. You didn't answer my question. Here it is again:

If they look different, why can we not conclude they were different? In other words, can you tell us what DOES constitute proof for morphological difference, so we can find a transitional series for your flying goalposts? The proof should be something "very easy" for scientists to provide, right?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
I didn't say I don't trust science. I didn't even say I don't trust scientists. I don't trust evolutionists. As there's some question as to whether these two fields even overlap, I don't see your point.

So you don't trust scientists if they happen to come to a conclusion that you don't like. The Catholic Church tried that once; good thing they know better now.

How do you know they are separate species? Why is your definition of species relevant?

The morphological species concept is not my definition, but the standard method used in paleontology. You have no problem using it to differentiate Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus, but when it comes to forams in a nice and simple transition it all of a sudden doesn't work.

What makes you think you know that any of them changed?

I have two eyes and can see the morphological evidence in the picture. Go right ahead if you want to keep insisting that no change occurred, but everyone can see right through you.

Who the fsck cares?

I assumed you would, since you did ask for a non-vertebrate transition series.

I'm not saying that the statement isn't true -- I DO believe we all would get a third set of teeth. But you were taking that out of context. It was a prediction that is met by the evidence, not an assertion that we all get a third set of teeth. . . . And unlike your evidence for evolution, the evidence that some people get a third set of teeth doesn't take any imagination.

LOL. Like I said before, you are hardly qualified to determine what is imaginary or not. You never providing any scientific evidence, other than a joke about dentures and some anecdotal evidence. In fact, you dropped the argument when pressed to explain the developmental biology of this mysterious third set.

Of course not. YOU had to create a new thread that moves them because you couldn't come up with anything that could reach MY goalposts, which are perfectly reasonable but impossible to meet because evolution isn't true.

Me? Last time I looked, you started this thread.

Bankrupt? You mean as in having 0 (zero) Zilch, goose-egg? As in the number of transitional series you've been able to produce that meets my simple criteria? And since you have to make up transitions out of nowhere, you, sir, are not only bankrupt, but overdrawn.

Like I said, the lurkers aren’t fooled. You’ve asked for a transition from non-vertebrate fossil record, the 99.99% as you call it, and that’s what you’ve been given. Now whether you accept it or not really doesn’t matter, since I doubt you ever intend to accept anything.

Oh, yeah, it's REALLY silly to expect to see a significant transition from 99.98% of the fossil record. How could I ask for such an outrageous thing?

But that is not your challenge. No one but you is fooled by your bait and switch.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

Nice try, but I didn't ask why are you moving the goal posts. You didn't answer my question. Here it is again:

If they look different, why can we not conclude they were different?

You can conclude that they're proof of Quaker Oatmeal if you like. Nobody has proven to ME that the difference isn't due to fossilization, or if not, that it means anything more than the difference between the shape of your nose and the shape of mine.

Originally posted by blader

In other words, can you tell us what DOES constitute proof for morphological difference, so we can find a transitional series for your flying goalposts? The proof should be something "very easy" for scientists to provide, right?

Yes, it should be easy, since you have 99.9875% of the fossil record to draw from.

You want a suggestion? Why ask me? You're the one who thinks evolution occurred. If you think there's common ancestry between a foraminifera and a scallop, show us all the intermediates. Or how about showing us the transitionals between a trilobyte and a spider? A sand crab and a spider? What? You don't think they're related?

Or are you telling me that the most significant examples of evolution in the 99.99875% of the fossil record only shows how brachiopods evolved into brachiopods, and trilobytes evolved into trilobytes? Well, I guess that explains the diversity of species, doesn't it?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

But that is not your challenge. No one but you is fooled by your bait and switch.

Really? Well, I'm perfectly happy to let everyone else read the challenge and see if your transition lives up to it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Really? Well, I'm perfectly happy to let everyone else read the challenge and see if your transition lives up to it.

Then why do you substitute something else for your challenge when you claim that no one can produce a particular bit of evidence. Please read the words you were resonding to:

That [meaning your words: "a significant transition from 99.98% of the fossil record."] is not your challenge. No one but you is fooled by your bait and switch.

So no, the example Rufus gave may not quite meet your challenge. Nevertheless it is a significant transitional series from 99.98% of the fossil record.

Ok, here is what we have..
Thing A: a transitional series from 99.98% of the fossil record.
Thing A has been done (repeatedly).
Thing B: your challenge met
Thing B has not been done.

It is true to say that "my challenge has not been met" or any other words that accurately represent that fact.

It is untrue to say that "no transitional fossil series from 99.98% of the fossil record has been produced" or any words that mean the same thing as that.

You cannot use the fact that Thing B has not been done as validation for saying untrue things about Thing A.

 

[unworthyone]

I'm sorry people but the guy is right. That "transitional" series looks like something that interevolved. Thats not what he wants, obviously.

My kids aren't as hairy as I am or as naturally "buff"   hahah...but that doesn't prove evolution one bit.

I'd like to see it too. A transitional series from sea-animal to man would be a good one for me.

But even a simple case of "new species" would be better then nothing.

Like a trilobite to spider.

Can you do that?

If you can't why not?

 

[Jerry Smith]

worthy, did you read the challenges, read the responses (not just look at the pictures), and read the actual claims Nick makes about his challenge (i.e. no transitional series can be found....)?

I don't know if order-level or higher-level transitional series can be found in the invertebrates. Wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't. Yet phylum-level evolution is recorded in the fossil record (with faunal progression and some single transitional fossils - and some of those fossils are of somewhat dubious status).

Non-vertebrate radiation occurred around 3-600 million years ago and the diagnostic structures that can be readily identified in recent macroscopic vertebrate fossil are microscopic in smaller and older invertebrates.

As many of us have repeatedly pointed out, the fossil record is very incomplete and, while it does support evolution as far as it goes (and it certainly doesn't contradict evolution), it is the least abundant and least forceful evidence for evolution. We are being asked to strain at the gnat of the invertebrate fossil record, and swallow the camel of YEC dismissal of the various strong lines of evidence in support of common descent.

Nick's challenge remains unmet, but fossil transitional series from the non-vertebrate fossil record are common enough that even amateur internet junkies like us can provide (quite a few) examples.

 

[choccy]

I'm sorry people but the guy is right. That "transitional" series looks like something that interevolved. Thats not what he wants, obviously.

I think we all agree on that. However, even though no transitional series matchinh Nick's exact criteria have been produced doesn't mean that transitions from the invertebrate part of the fossil record haven't been shown. The point we're trying to make is that there is a big difference between what Nick wants, and what scientists define as a transitional series. Transitions according to any useful scientific definition of the term has been provided.

My kids aren't as hairy as I am or as naturally "buff" hahah...but that doesn't prove evolution one bit.

I have a bit of a problem with the word "prove" in a scientific context, but anyway. Your kids being different from you is an example of descent with modifications. One of the cornerstones of evolutionary theory. It doesn't really "prove" anything though, but it is evidence (I like that word much better) for descent with modifications.

I'd like to see it too. A transitional series from sea-animal to man would be a good one for me.

Hmmm, and how many fine grained transitions would you require? 200? 800? 12,000? I think I'll let that challenge remain unanswered.

But even a simple case of "new species" would be better then nothing.

I'm sure you've been sent to this place before.

Like a trilobite to spider.

Are you sure spiders descended from trilobites? Anyway, see above.

Can you do that?

Me? Nope.

If you can't why not?

I have job and a life beside my job. Why don't you do it yourself?

Choccy

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by choccy
Hmmm, and how many fine grained transitions would you require? 200? 800? 12,000? I think I'll let that challenge remain unanswered. 

You are so nice. I do have a job too. Thats why I ask. I don't have time just like you do but I'm not the one supporting evolution and I would take the time to see this info if I was believing in it.

And no. I would do fine with a transitional series of 20 or fossils I think.

Come on now. You got 500 million years to work with. You can do it.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Nick's challenge remains unmet, but fossil transitional series from the non-vertebrate fossil record are common enough that even amateur internet junkies like us can provide (quite a few) examples.

Yes they are easy to find because there are an abundance of them. And they are obviously A LOT older then mankind. Why is that?

 

[Jerry Smith]

worthy...

1), from the text cited by LFOD in his post on another thread:

For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between 1) Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), 2) Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978)

A class-level transition is a higher level transition than the one that separates man and apes. That means there is more morphological difference between the two related classes than there is between a human and chimp, by about two orders of magnitude. The transitions between these invertebrate classes are not fine-grained, but the transitional fossils do exist, proving that organisms of intermediate morphology did exist, just as evolution requires they did.

A transitional series is a rare thing. If a dice roll of "2" is rare, then 20 of them in roughly the same number of rolls is too much to hope for.

We do have some transitional series from the invertebrates, but the series do not generally extend past the species or genus level. Such is the case with the examples we posted.

You seem to have your attention focused strictly on the invertebrate fossil record (I'm sure in much the way np hoped you would). It is poor in transitionals. The vertebrate (the much more recent, much more macroscopic, but admittedly much smaller) fossil record is rich in transitional fossils. Judging purely by the relative absence of transitional series of the fossil record, we could conclude that the vertebrate orders evolved and the invertebrate orders were all special creations. If you choose to do this, though, you have to ignore the rest of the evidence. The rest of the evidence says that invertebrates diversified the same way vertebrates did. Even the fossil record of the invertebrates says so - it just doesn't have the smoking guns the way the vertebrate record does.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Unworthyone,

The foram data I posted is only part of a larger body of research.

Here is an FSU press release talking about it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I don't know if order-level or higher-level transitional series can be found in the invertebrates. Wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't.

Wouldn't surprise me, either. But you're the only one who still insists it happened in spite of the total lack of evidence from 99.9875% of the fossil record. So you are perfectly comfortable to abandon science when it comes to evolution.

 

[Morat]

  Note: It's the oldest section, and comprised of forms the most lacking in hard parts...the bits that fossilize.

   And of course, the logical conclusion from Nick's implied attack is that God lovingly created arthopods, and let man evolve.