• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Another transitional fossil found

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/03/early.walker.ap/index.html

Fossil identified as earliest land walker

AP) -- A fossil found in 1971 has been newly identified as the earliest known animal built to walk on land, a salamanderlike creature that marked a previously unknown stage in the evolution of fish into the ancestors of all vertebrates alive today.

The toothy animal, Pederpes finneyae, lived between 348 million and 344 million years ago in what is now Scotland. It was perhaps a yard long, and probably split its time between the water and land where it walked on four feet, said Jenny Clack, of the Cambridge University Museum of Zoology.

"It trudged through the swamp catching anything that moved -- not terribly exciting, I suppose," Clack said.

Clack formally describes Pederpes in this week's journal Nature. The creature's nearly complete fossil skeleton had lain, mislabeled as a fish, in a Scottish museum since its discovery 31 years ago. Further work on the fossil in the 1990s revealed it had legs.

The identification helps close a hole in the early fossil record of a group of creatures called tetrapods.

The gap, or Romer's Gap -- named for the late Harvard paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer -- had stumped scientists seeking to chart the evolution of the first four-limbed creatures with backbones. Tetrapods were the first animals known to walk the Earth and are the ancestors of today's mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds.

"Discovery of a nearly complete skeleton in the middle of Romer's Gap should help in establishing the pattern of evolutionary change among early tetrapods," wrote Robert Carroll, of Montreal's Redpath Museum, in an accompanying commentary.
 
ROFL!!! Check out this quote from the article.

"We are now, finally, with the discovery of animals such as this, beginning to get some actual data as opposed to speculation," said John Bolt, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Field Museum in Chicago.

Funny how, according to everyone on this forum, evolution has never BEEN based on speculation, but entirely on evidence. Then when some fossil turns up that looks more convincingly like a transitional than anything else in the record, suddenly all the OLD info was speculation, but THIS is evidence.

Yeah, right.
 
Upvote 0

choccy

Active Member
Jun 27, 2002
126
1
Visit site
✟361.00
Faith
Atheist
Funny how, according to everyone on this forum, evolution has never BEEN based on speculation, but entirely on evidence.

What do you think the quote from the article refers to? The whole Theory of Evolution (i.e. common descent, natural selection a.s.o) or just the so-called Romer's gap?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure most people here will agree that evolutionary theory was fairly speculative for the first few years, but then backed up by more and more evidence over the years. And I have never heard or seen anyone claim that they know the evolutionary path for any organism that ever existed in minute detail, so get ready for more speculation.

Choccy
 
Upvote 0
LOL!

Yeah, we're still waiting for seals to develop legs too!

We could fabricate a bunch of transitional myths using animals alive today. These transitional myths involving extinct species are no different.

There's no such thing as a transitional fossil in the macro-evolutionary sense. It's all bogus.

Animals were created the way they are from the start, including the animal mentioned.

The evolutionists can make all the claims they want and people will continue laughing at them and their assumptions.
 
Upvote 0
Funny how, according to everyone on this forum, evolution has never BEEN based on speculation, but entirely on evidence. Then when some fossil turns up that looks more convincingly like a transitional than anything else in the record, suddenly all the OLD info was speculation, but THIS is evidence.

Yeah, right.

Nick, I assume you are intelligent enough to have understood that the "speculation" in question was about the kinds of creatures that filled Romer's gap. Therefore I have a question. Was this just "sour grapes" because another transitional fossil has been found right where it should have been, or do you get so excited when you see one of your "buzz words" that you can't contain yourself and have no choice but to post something sarcastic, even knowing ahead of time that your misrepresentation of the position of your opponents is specious?

Do you ever have moments when you want to go back and post a follow up admitting that your sarcastic mis-analysis was unfounded, or do you just cross your fingers and hope that no one will call you on it?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Freodin

He who laughs last...

..did not get the joke earlier.

Which reminds me of a totally off-topic joke.

There's only one joke book in a prison library, and all the inmates in the prison have it memorized by now. So they don't even bother telling jokes anymore, they simply yell out the number of the joke in the book.

So one inmate yells out, "Eleven!" and many others laugh. Another yells, "Two hundred thirty!" and most of the inmates laugh again. Another yells, "Forty five!" There are no laughs, but one of the inmates mutters, "Some guys just don't know how to tell a joke."

...alternate punch line...

Another yells, "Forty five!" and many inmates laugh, but one guy just laughs and laughs and laughs. One of the inmates says to his cellmate, "What's with him?" The cellmate says, "He probably never heard that one before."
 
Upvote 0

HtH

Antievangelist atheist
Jul 5, 2002
30
0
Visit site
✟173.00
Sauron - beautiful name. Anyhew, on to the point.
CycloRider, by your assertion
Animals were created the way they are from the start, including the animal mentioned.
are you implying that every species that has ever existed was made just the way it is? If all species were on Earth from the beginning, all at once, it could have got a little crowded down here. And what about those species that could not survive in the climate today? Dinosaurs required approx. 5% CO2 levels to survive, and we would die in those conditions.
Also, if God made all the complex stuff, why did he bother to make all the protozoans as well? And why on earth did he create bacteria and viruses?
Toodle-oo,
HtH
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by HtH

Also, if God made all the complex stuff, why did he bother to make all the protozoans as well? And why on earth did he create bacteria and viruses?
Toodle-oo,
HtH

The irony here is that if a problem surfaces for evolution, proponents of evolution simply manufacture the solution out of nowhere, (from a literary perspective, they are invoking what is ironically called deus ex machina). Take, for example, hopeful monsters, punk eek, and any number of other ridiculous attempts to explain away the fact that the fossil record does not support evolution.

But they'll take something like a virus or the inability to manufacture vitamin C and pretend to know God and His motives so well that they can be certain that God would not create or allow such things.

Where did their imagination go? Surely if they can produce hopeful monsters and punk eek, they can invent some creative way to explain a virus! But, no. Their knowledge of the God (in whom many of them do not even believe!) is so thorough and absolute that they can be certain beyond any doubt that this God would not create the virus. Indeed, they know this God so well that there's no point in reading the Bible to see if there are any clues to this riddle there.
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

There's no such thing as a transitional fossil in the macro-evolutionary sense. It's all bogus.

Animals were created the way they are from the start, including the animal mentioned.

Gee. This is just *too easy* :rolleyes:

1.  Wanna explain the SEVERAL HUNDRED transitional fossils listed here?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Let me make it easy on you.  Pick any 10 listed there, and demonstrate why they are not transitional.



2..Or how about the 29 DIFFERENT and INDEPENDENT evidences for macroevolution here?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Again, let me make it easy:  pick any 5 evidences and demonstrate why they do not qualify as evidence for macroevolution.



My prediction is:

1.  You don't know enough of the science to be able to even *read* the articles for comprehension;

2.  You're hopelessly unable to respond to either of my challenges; so

3.  Instead of admitting that, you'll wave your hands, respond with a bumper-sticker cliche, and either dodge or exit the debate.

4.  In a few days/weeks, you'll resurface with the same tired claim - at which point, I'll pull my response here and post it again, to remind everyone how you failed to address it the first time.


 
 
Upvote 0

HtH

Antievangelist atheist
Jul 5, 2002
30
0
Visit site
✟173.00
No, you misunderstand me. I was not intending to belittle or prove the non exsistense of God, I was merely trying to understand the reasoning behind the creationist viewpoint. Even if there was no more evidence for evolution than you say (which is untrue) it would still be an incredibly powerful argument for the diversity of species we see today, and, more importantly, why these species are so different from the ones in the fossil record. Also, it is the only argument I have heard that adequately explains convergence – the remarkable likenesses between two species that are often as different as mammals and fish and yet, faced with the same selection pressures, have converged on a similar body pattern.
I agree that creation may well have occurred, but the ideas of creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Why do you insist that they are?
What are “hopeful monsters” and “punk eek”?
And the point is not that we know God. Of course we don’t – but we can look at something and say “that’s an awfully strange way of doing something,” or “why on earth is that the way it is,” and reason that there is a strong possibility that the thing in question was not designed at all, except for the sole purpose of propagation.
Now I do not accept the Bible as the be all and end all of proof. This is just my opinion, and you obviously hold a different one, and that’s fine – people are entitled to hold opinions. But I feel strongly that any theory that is based entirely on one source, however good that source may be, is flawed. If there is no collaborating evidence, as there is for evolution, I will remain highly skeptical.
Ta (drunkenly)
HtH

P.S. You may be interested to know that HtH stands for Heading To Hell. Hey – if you’re right, I am...
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley
Where did their imagination go? Surely if they can produce hopeful monsters and punk eek, they can invent some creative way to explain a virus! But, no. Their knowledge of the God (in whom many of them do not even believe!) is so thorough and absolute that they can be certain beyond any doubt that this God would not create the virus. Indeed, they know this God so well that there's no point in reading the Bible to see if there are any clues to this riddle there.

This is not the point.  The point is that HTH asked you the question.   Can you not answer?

Nice two-step, though.

 
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by HtH

What are “hopeful monsters” and “punk eek”?

Both are hypotheses that people pulled out of their keister to compensate for the fact that the fossil record fails to support evolution.

The hopeful monster suggests that there are sudden dramatic mutations that create a whole new type of creature. To exaggerate just so you get what I mean, a bird's egg hatches an elephant. While that's meant only as a humorous exaggeration, it's really about as stupid an idea as that. Yet at one time Stephen Jay Gould, whom many people here worship, thought it would eventually be proven correct.

Punk eek is "pucutated equilibrium," which is really just a more palatable version of the hopeful monster. It's basically the same idea, only toned down and restated so that it won't sound as outrageous. It simply says that there are periods of equilibrium where evolution doesn't really do much. Then suddenly, for some reason nobody really knows, many mutations occur that causes evolution to speed up really fast for a while and produce dramatically new and improved creatures. Then it settles down again.

Originally posted by HtH

And the point is not that we know God. Of course we don’t – but we can look at something and say “that’s an awfully strange way of doing something,”

Maybe. But if you'd pick up your Bible and read it, you'd find the answer there. Whether you believe the answer is another story, but it's not like it's missing and you have to guess.

Originally posted by HtH

P.S. You may be interested to know that HtH stands for Heading To Hell. Hey – if you’re right, I am...

Maybe you are, maybe you're not. Things change. I used to be a card-carrying anti-Christian atheist who wanted everyone else to be an atheist, too. And I couldn't imagine the day when I'd ever read the Bible let alone believe anything that's in it. But God had other plans.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley


Okay, I guess you're saying I don't have to learn about evolution to say with absolute certainty that it is wrong.

Only if in your mind there is no difference between making a moral judgement of Adolph Hitler versus making a scientific judgement of the validity of quantum mechanics.

 
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley
Both are hypotheses that people pulled out of their keister to compensate for the fact that the fossil record fails to support evolution.

Correction: the fossil record fails to support certain modes of evolution.

The hopeful monster suggests that there are sudden dramatic mutations that create a whole new type of creature. To exaggerate just so you get what I mean, a bird's egg hatches an elephant. While that's meant only as a humorous exaggeration, it's really about as stupid an idea as that. Yet at one time Stephen Jay Gould, whom many people here worship, thought it would eventually be proven correct.

Set up a straw man.  Then tear it down with your wit.  Brilliant!

Punk eek is "pucutated equilibrium," which is really just a more palatable version of the hopeful monster. It's basically the same idea, only toned down and restated so that it won't sound as outrageous. It simply says that there are periods of equilibrium where evolution doesn't really do much. Then suddenly, for some reason nobody really knows, many mutations occur that causes evolution to speed up really fast for a while and produce dramatically new and improved creatures. Then it settles down again.

Twice in a row!  Nice job!

Maybe. But if you'd pick up your Bible and read it, you'd find the answer there. Whether you believe the answer is another story, but it's not like it's missing and you have to guess.

Please direct me to the chapter and verse where it explains why men have nipples.
 
Upvote 0