Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, do you think you could manage a definition you didn't get from a comic book?

Just stooping to the level of my competition, my friend.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution has a scientific definition and it's not universal common descent.

I don't know why* you're fighting so hard against the idea that "definitions" of biological evolution can encompass common descent. You'll never find a textbook on biological evolution that does not include shared ancestry with other species.

* (Actually, I'm being specious. Naturally you oppose shared ancestry due to personal ideology/theology)

 

[mark kennedy]

Just stooping to the level of my competition, my friend.

Still no definition, why am I not surprised.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't know why* you're fighting so hard against the idea that "definitions" of biological evolution can encompass common descent. You'll never find a textbook on biological evolution that does not include shared ancestry with other species.

* (Actually, I'm being specious. Naturally you oppose shared ancestry due to personal ideology/theology)

There is no point in having a discussion on a scientific topic when there is no real meaning to the key term. They want to pontificate that it's true but refuse a scientific definition of what evolution actually is.

 

[pitabread]

There is no point in having a discussion on a scientific topic when there is no real meaning to the key term. They want to pontificate that it's true but refuse a scientific definition of what evolution actually is.

Part of the issue is you won't find a singular scientific definition written down anywhere. Science is not like law, for example, where you'll have a definitive source of verbiage for a legal statute.

That said, the inclusion of common descent when discussing evolutionary biology is hardly incorrect. Again, you won't find a single textbook that excludes the concept.

Or to put it another way: if someone is referring to common descent when talking about biological evolution, they're not wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

Part of the issue is you won't find a singular scientific definition written down anywhere. Science is not like law, for example, where you'll have a definitive source of verbiage for a legal statute.

For one thing if science is anything it's meticulous. Scientists are uniform in their nomenclature and the term for 'evolution', is not ambiquise. What I'm refuting is a logical fallacy, specifically an equivocation.

That said, the inclusion of common descent when discussing evolutionary biology is hardly incorrect. Again, you won't find a single textbook that excludes the concept.

Or to put it another way: if someone is referring to common descent when talking about biological evolution, they're not wrong.

My original point was that it's not one thing but two things, the change of alleles in populations over time and the philosophy of natural history that assumes universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I won't find it anywhere? I will find both everywhere:

Definition. noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

Supplement

Evolution pertains to the sequence of events depicting the gradual progression of changes in the genetic composition of a biological population over successive generations. Accordingly, all life on earth originates from a common ancestor, which is referred to as the last universal common ancestor, some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.

In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution. (Biology Online)

2. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. (Thefreedictionary.com)

evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation. (PBS, Evolution Library, Glossary)
​

This is one of my easiest tactics, choose a well established fact and then when the Darwinians deny the obvious I just let their fallacious rhetoric drive them into a downward spiral. If they won't admit the obvious then why should I trust them to be honest about the obscure?

 

[Speedwell]

My original point was that it's not one thing but two things, the change of alleles in populations over time and the philosophy of natural history that assumes universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Your use of "philosophy" and "exclusively naturalistic" in such close proximity is suspiciously like an equivocation. Say it ain't so, Joe.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your use of "philosophy" and "exclusively naturalistic" in such close proximity is suspiciously like an equivocation. Say it ain't so, Joe.

What do you think science is? It's an epistemology (theory of knowledge), that specifically explores natural phenomenon. What could it possibly benefit our knowledge to deny a clear and comprehensive definition?

 

[Speedwell]

What do you think science is? It's an epistemology (theory of knowledge), that specifically explores natural phenomenon. What could it possibly benefit our knowledge to deny a clear and comprehensive definition?

As long as you don't try and confuse it (especially in regard to abiogenesis) with metaphysical naturalism, we'll be fine.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For one thing if science is anything it's meticulous. Scientists are uniform in their nomenclature and the term for 'evolution', is not ambiquise. What I'm refuting is a logical fallacy, specifically an equivocation.



My original point was that it's not one thing but two things, the change of alleles in populations over time and the philosophy of natural history that assumes universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I won't find it anywhere? I will find both everywhere:

Definition. noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

Supplement

Evolution pertains to the sequence of events depicting the gradual progression of changes in the genetic composition of a biological population over successive generations. Accordingly, all life on earth originates from a common ancestor, which is referred to as the last universal common ancestor, some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.

In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution. (Biology Online)

2. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. (Thefreedictionary.com)

evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation. (PBS, Evolution Library, Glossary)
​

This is one of my easiest tactics, choose a well established fact and then when the Darwinians deny the obvious I just let their fallacious rhetoric drive them into a downward spiral. If they won't admit the obvious then why should I trust them to be honest about the obscure?

And nowhere in there do I see any mention of the phrase "exclusively naturalistic means" except in your own phrase.
All this leads to me believe that the only reason you are bringing this up is because you find that science clashes with your religious beliefs and you don't like that.

And you STILL haven't shown me where I insulted your religious beliefs, which leads me to conclude that I in fact did not insult your religious beliefs and you are lying about me. Real class act.

 

[doubtingmerle]

this is because they all belong to the same family- eupleridae. so they may indeed have a common ancestor.

Let me come back to this, because you essentially sold the farm with this statement. So you admit that all the mongoose, fossa, and civet species in Madagascar could have evolved from one common ancestor.

Interesting, because my point has been that the mongoose, fossa, and civet species of Madagascar evolved from a common ancestor. If we can agree that this is likely the case, we can move on from your fossa illustration. Since you agree that the fossa could have evolved from a common ancestor with other non-cat species, then the fossa is not a special creation of God specifically made with parts of the cat and parts of the mongoose mixed together. It is a distinct species that evolved from a common ancestor with the various mongoose species.

I think I made my point.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And nowhere in there do I see any mention of the phrase "exclusively naturalistic means" except in your own phrase.

I think Mark is confusing science with theology. In his theology, all we have to go by is certain ancient words, so all that is left is to argue about the exact meaning of those ancient words. And so it has been, on other threads with Mark, that he gets off into dictionaries looking up definitions of words until he finds one he likes, then argues tirelessly that the Bible must be interpreted with this definition. OK, in such theology, when all one has is the words, then that may be what you need to do.

But science is not based on interpreting the words of some pronouncement by an authority. No scientific guru has decreed an official definition of words that all scientists must use. Words like evolution have many definitions, and can be used in many contexts. The important thing is that we as lovers of science understand the concepts other scientists express, and are able to build a broad consensus of opinion on things like evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Ok, that is the progressive creation position. Is that what you believe? Do you think that God created the first mammal like reptiles about 300 million years ago, and then incrementally created things closer and closer to mammals until he finally created the first placental mammal about 80 million years ago? Is so, why does it take your God so many tries to get it right?

i actually refer to the possibility that its just a random creation and not a progressive one (its means several creation events).

Wait, what? We found many more than just one mammal fossil. We found tens of thousands. And we found more than just one ancient reptile fossil. We found many thousands older than 300 million years. So how credible is the explanation that mammals existed for hundreds of millions of years without leaving a single fossil, while leaving many fossils in the last 80 million years?.

again: if we go by the number of species then we should predict that in most cases we will find a correlation between them. so if reptiles have more species then mammals then we can expect to find reptiles first. remember that we found only a part of reptiles species untill we find the first mammal fossil.

Ah, so you recognize that the fossa, the civet and the various mongoose species all may have had a common ancestor. Scientists think this ancestor arrived in Madagascar 20 million years ago. Is this what you are saying, that all these creatures evolved from one ancestor over 20 million years ?See List of mammals of Madagascar - Wikipedia

only the eupleridae family and not all madagascar species.

Sure, bring on the evidence for your claim.

here is one example out of many: according to evolution we should expect to find first fish, then a missing link between a fish and a tetrapod (fishapod), and then a tetrapod. but we actualy find first fish, then a tetrapod, and then a missing link=the wrong order. so again: if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution then we have also evidence against it.

So first, can you agree that there were transitionals introduced from reptile to mammal as time progressed, just like the Model T and the Fordor were intermediates between the Model A and the Mustang?

lets say that for the sake of the argument i agree. but again: its doesnt prove any evolution. and this is also when we ignoring all the fossils in the wrong place.

If you agree that animals advanced through time, just as cars advanced through time, then the only question is whether

i dont think that animals advanced through time. actually some of the suppose primitive species on earth have a genes count as the complex one. for instance: nematode and sponge have a similar gene number like human has (18000-20000).

Interesting, because my point has been that the mongoose, fossa, and civet species of Madagascar evolved from a common ancestor. If we can agree that this is likely the case, we can move on from your fossa illustration. Since you agree that the fossa could have evolved from a common ancestor with other non-cat species, then the fossa is not a special creation of God specifically made with parts of the cat and parts of the mongoose mixed together. It is a distinct species that evolved from a common ancestor with the various mongoose species.

its possible. but again: doesnt prove any evolution of kinds (be creationism meanning). they are looking almost the same creature.

 

[pitabread]

For one thing if science is anything it's meticulous. Scientists are uniform in their nomenclature and the term for 'evolution', is not ambiquise. What I'm refuting is a logical fallacy, specifically an equivocation.

It sounds like you're creating an argument in your mind and then trying to win that argument.

My original point was that it's not one thing but two things, the change of alleles in populations over time and the philosophy of natural history that assumes universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Sure, although I'd argue that second part of that statement is worded a bit poorly. For one, "exclusively naturalistic means" is redundant given we're talking about science. Science by definition deals with exclusively naturalistic means. Second, it's less of an assumption and more of a conclusion by this point. Just genetics alone is overwhelmingly pointed in the direction of all life on Earth sharing common ancestry. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

Finally, it's not really a philosophy beyond accepting the basic philosophy required to accept scientific findings as true (i.e. the universe is not deceiving us). Which is why I find people arguing that species were individually created so odd. Even if one accepts that view, it doesn't change how life on Earth looks. And life on Earth looks like it evolved and shares common ancestry.

Believing in special creation, particularly the YEC view of things, is basically accepting that the universe is inherently deceptive.

This is one of my easiest tactics, choose a well established fact and then when the Darwinians deny the obvious I just let their fallacious rhetoric drive them into a downward spiral. If they won't admit the obvious then why should I trust them to be honest about the obscure?

Again, I think you're just trying to win an argument of your own making.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i actually refer to the possibility that its just a random creation and not a progressive one (its means several creation events).

Several creation events? What does that even mean? Science shows that the earth was around for hundreds of millions of years before the first one celled creature, then for billions of years before multicellular life became common, than for hundreds of millions of years before the first placental mammal, and then for millions of years before humans. Do you believe all those were separate creation events over millions of years?

And what about the horse series? We see horses evolving from the fox sized hyracotherium to the modern horse through many intermediate steps as time advanced. Later fossils got closer to the modern horse. Was each of those intermediates a separate act of creation?

only the eupleridae family and not all madagascar species.

Understood. But you are acknowledging that the fossa could have evolved from a mongoose ancestor. That completely throws out your previous argument that the fossa had to be a special creation because it had some similarity to cats. You now agree that it could have evolved from a mongoose ancestor. Case closed.

here is one example out of many: according to evolution we should expect to find first fish, then a missing link between a fish and a tetrapod (fishapod), and then a tetrapod. but we actualy find first fish, then a tetrapod, and then a missing link=the wrong order. so again: if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution then we have also evidence against it.

Missing link? There are a whole series of fossils that have been found that are midway between fish and amphibians. See Fish to Amphibian Transition . So why do you say they are missing when they aren't?

I have asked you over and over to give me an example of an out of order fossil. You refuse--refuse!--to do so.
And yet somehow you claim I am ignoring your evidence.

Please, please show me your evidence.

lets say that for the sake of the argument i agree. but again: its doesnt prove any evolution.

So you are just going to evade the question?

Many mammal-like reptiles have been found in sequence before the first mammals. Do you agree that there were many mammal-like reptiles before the first mammal? You cannot even answer that simple question. Why not?

Here is a partial list of the therapsids. List of therapsids - Wikipedia They have features midway between reptiles and mammals. The lived between 300 million years ago and 200 million years ago. There were no mammals found before these creatures. After them, there were many mammals found. Do you agree? Or will you just ignore the question again?

How can we find thousands of placental mammals after the Jurassic, but none before? Blaming it all on dumb luck is just plain silly.

i dont think that animals advanced through time. actually some of the suppose primitive species on earth have a genes count as the complex one. for instance: nematode and sponge have a similar gene number like human has (18000-20000).

Understood. But the variety of life has changed completely since early times. In Precambrian times, there were only one celled creatures and small multicelled creatures that did not leave much in the line of fossils. In the Cambrian period there were simple multicelled creatures, but no fish, reptiles, or mammals. Fish, reptiles and mammals were incrementally introduced through the fosssil record as time went on.

Do you agree there were no reptiles in the Cambrian times? Do you agree that life in Precambian times was simpler than life today?

Let'd get even more basic. Do you think the earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

 

[sfs]

For one thing if science is anything it's meticulous. Scientists are uniform in their nomenclature and the term for 'evolution', is not ambiquise.

You would have a point here if everything you just wrote hadn't been completely wrong. Scientists are frequently very sloppy in their terminology, they are not uniform in their nomenclature, and "evolution" can mean a range of things in biology.

 

[mark kennedy]

You would have a point here if everything you just wrote hadn't been completely wrong. Scientists are frequently very sloppy in their terminology, they are not uniform in their nomenclature, and "evolution" can mean a range of things in biology.

You would be a lot more convincing if you would just simply acknowledge a simple definition. The complex and the esoteric becomes a lot more comprehensive what there is a substantive point of reference. It's a pretty straight forward definition Steve, what's the problem?

 

[Speedwell]

You would be a lot more convincing if you would just simply acknowledge a simple definition. The complex and the esoteric becomes a lot more comprehensive what there is a substantive point of reference. It's a pretty straight forward definition Steve, what's the problem?

I've lost track of your argument. Are you angling for a definition with or without universal common descent?

 

[sfs]

You would be a lot more convincing if you would just simply acknowledge a simple definition. The complex and the esoteric becomes a lot more comprehensive what there is a substantive point of reference. It's a pretty straight forward definition Steve, what's the problem?

There's no problem. What you said was wrong, and I told you so. Biologists really do use the word "evolution" in different ways. The limits to what is considered evolution are provided by the allele-frequency definition: evolution is a genetic change to a population. But they also use it to mean common descent. That's because they're convinced that they're fundamentally talking about the same process viewed in different aspects.

 

[mark kennedy]

There's no problem. What you said was wrong, and I told you so. Biologists really do use the word "evolution" in different ways. The limits to what is considered evolution are provided by the allele-frequency definition: evolution is a genetic change to a population. But they also use it to mean common descent. That's because they're convinced that they're fundamentally talking about the same process viewed in different aspects.

That's exactly what I've said throughout the thread and since I've posted here, it's not one thing but two things. I must have quoted half a dozen sources showing exactly that but invariably the Creationist must be characterized as fundamentally ignorant and/or dishonest.