Are there transitional fossils?

[FreeinChrist]

Staff note - we had a glitch last night. I removed a bunch of duplicate posts that were made. It should be fine now.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ok. maybe i was not clear enough about my model. so in brief: i think that all creatures kinds (by a creationism meanning) created by an intelligent and not evolved from a common ancestor. its possible that there was several creation events and maybe the earth is indeed bilions of years old. just maybe.

Sorry, that does not answer my question. Lets try it again, with something more specific.

Take the first zebra, for instance. I think the zebra, and other Equus species, evolved through a series of ancestors as shown below. How do you think the first zebra came into existence? Did it just suddenly pop up out of nowhere? Is that what you think happened? Are you aware that this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?

Take another example, the Mesohippus. I think the first Mesohippus was about 40 million years ago, and that it evolved from ancestors as shown below. What do you think? Approximately when was the first Mesohippus? How did it come into existence?

So far you have made no attempt to give an answer to such questions. If you would actually try to do that, we could look at what you propose, and find out how well it matches the available evidence.

But you know you would be doomed if you actually tried to propose something other than evolution, yes? And so you continue to post such evasions, knowing that as long as you evade actually answering nobody can ever evaluate your view. And then you claim victory. That is not victory.

Once again, when and how did the first zebra come into existence? When and how do you think the first Mesohippus came into existence? As long as you evade the question, you cannot claim victory.

but the main point is a speciel creation and not evolution.

No evolution at all? Others here allow that God could have allowed some species to evolve into other species. Do you not allow that this may have happened also? Are you absolutely certain that no species ever evolved into another species? Are you absolutely certain no species ever evolved to be a little different after it was created?

please choose one of those suppose evidences and we will discuss about it to see if its indeed evidence for a common descent.

Ok. Let's talk about Part 1, #4, transitional fossils. Care to take a position on the Mesohippus, for instance?

if so also a human fossil with a dino one it's fine with evolution (70 my from a suppose 4 bilion years of evolution is nothing).

Absolutely, and dinosaur and human living together would have been fine with evolution. But the evidence shows classic dinosaurs all died out by 60 million years ago. Thousands of dinosaur fossils, all before 60 million years ago. Thousands of Hominid fossils, all within the last 5 million years. You have no explanation for that, do you? Why are those fossils always found in those time periods?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Those aren't scientific terms, evolution is and with a pretty straightforward definition. Evolution isn't one thing it's two, changing traits in populations very time and the 'naturalistic metaphysics, or actually mysticism of Darwinism.

-_- just no. Evolutionary theory is just the explanation of the observation that populations change over time and across generations. No more, and no less. Whatever extra people may try to tack on to it is their own stupidity incarnate.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok. maybe i was not clear enough about my model. so in brief: i think that all creatures kinds (by a creationism meanning) created by an intelligent and not evolved from a common ancestor. its possible that there was several creation events and maybe the earth is indeed bilions of years old. just maybe. but the main point is a speciel creation and not evolution. one of my argument for this model is the self replicating watch. in brief: if a self replicaiting watch (that made from organic components) need a designer then also nature need one. you are welcome to falsified this argument.

You are comparing apples to rocks again. For one thing, natural selection pressures could produce what could be interpreted as "an organic self-replicating watch" if telling time was a huge benefit to survival. For example, if every day at exactly 12:00 pm, 7 pm, and 9 pm, a predator attacked, knowing those times would be crucial to survival. Plenty of organisms that live right now have a decent sense of time. So your assumption that the only means that a biological clock could exist is via creator is already flawed to begin with.

But hey, let's assume you were right, and the only way such a clock could exist was via creation. So what? Demonstrating that this one organism was created wouldn't mean that all organisms are created. Dogs are the product of artificial selection by humans, but that doesn't mean humans are the product of artificial selection too. It's an entirely meaningless comparison. Heck, even if the first life form on this planet was created, that wouldn't make how it changes over time equally controlled and artificial.

please choose one of those suppose evidences and we will discuss about it to see if its indeed evidence for a common descent.

Just one? How about shared non-coding parts of DNA? Namely, viral remnants. Viruses rarely inject themselves into the exact same spot on DNA every time, and these broken pieces of viral DNA don't do anything beneficial. Furthermore, viruses are subject to change a lot over the course of very short periods of time; so much so that we have to predict how they will change in order to make vaccines for the flu work by the time they are finished being made. What are the chances, do you think, that an ancestor to all modern chimps, and a different ancestor to all modern humans, happened to get the same viral infections which just happened to insert themselves into the same locations on DNA at the same times such that we now, just by pure coincidence, share dozens of these DNA segments with chimpanzees despite having no relation to them whatsoever? Those chances are so low that you'd have to be delusional to think that it is just a coincidence.

if so also a human fossil with a dino one it's fine with evolution (70 my from a suppose 4 bilion years of evolution is nothing).

Oh hey, I can wreak the entire evolutionary timeline by having a modern human exist before any of the ancestral species did. That wouldn't do anything to the theory of evolution at all. That was sarcasm. Or were you trying to suggest a dinosaur fossil be found that's only a few thousand years old? Given the environmental circumstances, if it is any species that existed 70 million years ago, that would wreak evolutionary theory just as much. No animal species on land could have survived going through so little change when the environment was in a huge flux between then and now. It would defy natural selection.

because this is what science showing us. search for the paper : "biomolecule in fossil remains" and you will see at table 1 that dna should not survive more then 2500 years in 20c:

biololecule in fossil remain - Google Search

-_- under certain conditions, DNA can last longer than 2500 years. For example, the reason why we have access to Neanderthal DNA is thanks in part to their practice of cannibalism and eating bone marrow. Their treatment of the bones helped keep the genetic material preserved (removed the moisture so bacterial decomposition was delayed). This, combined with the cold climate and dry caves in which they left the bones provided unusually favorable conditions for DNA preservation.

Furthermore, their DNA is never entirely intact; DNA had to be collected from multiple fossils to sequence the genome of Neanderthals, and it is still not entirely complete.

-_- also, not all biomolecules in fossils are DNA or belonged to the body that was fossilized. Preserved proteins give us insight into some aspects of the environment in which the fossil organism lived. Some proteins are so tough that they can hypothetically last indefinitely.

 

[xianghua]

Take another example, the Mesohippus. I think the first Mesohippus was about 40 million years ago, and that it evolved from ancestors as shown below. What do you think? Approximately when was the first Mesohippus? How did it come into existence?

yes. its possible that those species created by a designer. exactly like we see in a human design. when human design a car it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? of course not.

No evolution at all? Others here allow that God could have allowed some species to evolve into other species. Do you not allow that this may have happened also?

yes. why not? its only a speciation. i refer to the family level (in most cases). according to the creation model the limit is in the family level. like changing a dog into a cat or a rat into a human and so on.

Ok. Let's talk about Part 1, #4, transitional fossils. Care to take a position on the Mesohippus, for instance?

yes. its possible that all those horse species may share a common descent. but it was a horse-like creature and not something else. its also possible that those are a different kinds of horse-like creatures (its mean that they arent share a common descent). its difficult to tell because we cant prove they share a common descent with each other by the fossils themself.

Absolutely, and dinosaur and human living together would have been fine with evolution.

if so we cant falsified evolution with any kind of fossil. therefore evolution isnt a scientific theory at least in the paleontology field.

But the evidence shows classic dinosaurs all died out by 60 million years ago. Thousands of dinosaur fossils, all before 60 million years ago. Thousands of Hominid fossils, all within the last 5 million years. You have no explanation for that, do you? Why are those fossils always found in those time periods?

first: fossils are pushing back every time. even by a 100my. so it's possible that tomorrow we may find a human fopssil date about 30-40my and we will just change the fossil record of humans. and secondly: its possible that human just created in a different time then dinos. so or so: there is no evidence for evolution here.

and what about the DNA from a suppose 20my fossil? so science show us that DNA can survive milions of years or not?

 

[xianghua]

. For one thing, natural selection pressures could produce what could be interpreted as "an organic self-replicating watch" if telling time was a huge benefit to survival. So your assumption that the only means that a biological clock could exist is via creator is already flawed to begin with.

so a self replicating watch dont need a designer then?

But hey, let's assume you were right, and the only way such a clock could exist was via creation. So what? Demonstrating that this one organism was created wouldn't mean that all organisms are created. Dogs are the product of artificial selection by humans, but that doesn't mean humans are the product of artificial selection too.

artificial selection isnt a creation. its a variation. so it can happen without a designer too. but changing a fish into a tetrapod or a land mammal into a whale it's impossible even by an artificial selection. secondly: if even one case is evidence for a design then why we should believe in evolution at all?

Just one? How about shared non-coding parts of DNA? Namely, viral remnants. Viruses rarely inject themselves into the exact same spot on DNA every time, and these broken pieces of viral DNA don't do anything beneficial.

not in the last time i checked:

Retroviral promoters in the human genome | Bioinformatics | Oxford Academic

"ERV promoters drive tissue-specific and lineage-specific patterns of gene expression and contribute to expression divergence between paralogs. These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale"

or:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6771/full/403785a0.html

"Here we describe the opposite situation, where a viral gene has been sequestered to serve an important function in the physiology of a mammalian host"

What are the chances, do you think, that an ancestor to all modern chimps, and a different ancestor to all modern humans, happened to get the same viral infections which just happened to insert themselves into the same locations on DNA at the same times such that we now, just by pure coincidence, share dozens of these DNA segments with chimpanzees despite having no relation to them whatsoever? Those chances are so low that you'd have to be delusional to think that it is just a coincidence.

again: are you sure? i can show you the opposite actually.

-_- under certain conditions, DNA can last longer than 2500 years. For example, the reason why we have access to Neanderthal DNA is thanks in part to their practice of cannibalism and eating bone marrow. Their treatment of the bones helped keep the genetic material preserved (removed the moisture so bacterial decomposition was delayed). This, combined with the cold climate and dry caves in which they left the bones provided unusually favorable conditions for DNA preservation.

and even in those cases we arent talking about my but about much less. so a 20 my fossil with DNA?

-_- also, not all biomolecules in fossils are DNA or belonged to the body that was fossilized.

not in this case:

DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: an ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae)

 

[Speedwell]

so a self replicating watch dont need a designer then?

You keep asking this question, and the answer is still the same: it depends on the watch. If it is a mechanical watch with brass gears, jeweled bearings and springs then yes, it needs a designer. We can tell, because the components bear signs of human manufacture. If it is an organic entity it might not be possible to tell.

artificial selection isn't a creation. its a variation. so it can happen without a designer too.

Wrong. Artificial breeding is variation as well--the exact same variation which drives evolution--but followed by artificial rather than natural selection.

but changing a fish into a tetrapod or a land mammal into a whale it's impossible even by an artificial selection.

You know this how?

 

[doubtingmerle]

yes. its possible that those species created by a designer. exactly like we see in a human design. when human design a car it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? of course not.

The materials that make up cars don't suddenly pop up out of nothing. That would be a violation of the law of the conservation of matter.

But you appear to claim that the matter that makes up the zebra could suddenly have popped into existence.

I wasn't asking you who created animals. Again, I was asking how he did it.
Do you believe that animals still may be popping into existence? Is it possible that you will be walking down the street and--poof!--there is a new species of cow right in front of you? Is that how you think God creates? I have given you 29 evidence for evolution. Do you have a single evidence for this creation-out-of-nothing process?

yes. its possible that all those horse species may share a common descent. but it was a horse-like creature and not something else. its also possible that those are a different kinds of horse-like creatures (its mean that they arent share a common descent).

Ah, so you accept that I may be right about the whole horse series, that the modern horse, zebra, and donkey could have evolved from the Hyracotherium. In that case, I am also right that animals like the Mesohippus are transitionals. So that would prove my point.

we cant prove they share a common descent with each other by the fossils themself.

I already agreed to this. So why keep repeating things as though you are telling me something new?

The problem is that horse fossils appear in an order that is logical for evolution. It does seem to me to be rather odd to keep making animals closer and closer to the modern horse through millions of years without using evolution. What was God doing, tinkering and getting better at designing with time?

if so we cant falsified evolution with any kind of fossil. therefore evolution isnt a scientific theory at least in the paleontology field.

If all we had was fossils, perhaps. But that is only one of the many evidences for evolution.

first: fossils are pushing back every time. even by a 100my. so it's possible that tomorrow we may find a human fopssil date about 30-40my and we will just change the fossil record of humans. and secondly: its possible that human just created in a different time then dinos. so or so: there is no evidence for evolution here.

Uh no, the basic timetable has been known and has changed little for years.

But none of that has anything to do with my point. My point was that radiometric dating consistently dates every dinosaur much earlier than any human fossil. I think this is because dinosaurs lived earlier than people. That was my point. You simply ignore my point, and make an argument about something I was not even addressing. Do you care to actually address my point? Once more, I say dinosaur fossils date older than hominid fossils because dinosaurs lived much earlier than hominids. Do you agree that this is why dinosaur fossils date earlier?

and what about the DNA from a suppose 20my fossil? so science show us that DNA can survive milions of years or not?

From what I can tell, scraps of DNA may be many millions of years old in some situations. However we cannot tell for sure, because we don't have enough DNA to tell if it was from the animal in question. There were many years for contamination to set in from elsewhere. So we may just be seeing deteriorated DNA that had contaminated the fossil sometime in its lifetime. See Scientists challenge claims for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA .

 

[PsychoSarah]

so a self replicating watch dont need a designer then?

Not inherently, no. Your premise was flawed to begin with, as well as being entirely irrelevant to making actual observations of the life we know to exist.

artificial selection isnt a creation. its a variation. so it can happen without a designer too.

Uh, no. Artificial selection is when a sentient organism or group of sentient organisms manipulate the evolutionary path of a different species for a specific purpose. In order for the process to meet the definition of artificial selection, there must be a conscious, guiding hand that has a specific goal. Artificial selection literally cannot happen without a "designer", so to speak, otherwise, it's just natural selection.

but changing a fish into a tetrapod or a land mammal into a whale it's impossible even by an artificial selection.

-_- I never suggested that artificial selection can accomplish what is entirely impossible for natural selection to do; it is a way to get results that defy natural selection to an extent, and it gets results faster, but it still works with natural mutations and can't force an entirely nonviable form to become dominant in a population.

However, you can claim land animal to whale is impossible all you like, but you have yet to actually demonstrate that it is impossible. You haven't even posted a published article that says as much. Good luck finding one that does that isn't 100 years old.

secondly: if even one case is evidence for a design then why we should believe in evolution at all?

-_- that organism might be the exception rather than the rule, for one thing. You have to remember that the evidence in support of evolution is extremely vast. It would be extremely unlikely that any one piece of evidence opposing it would outright disprove the theory at this point. It's like having billions of different sources state that there were 3 family members living in a house, including tax records, birth certificates, marriage records, etc., and just 1 source stating that there were 4 family members.

Also, while that might have been enough a few decades ago, since we now have the technology to genetically manipulate organisms and force them to have genes that aren't in their lineage, a single strange organism could be the result of our interference. However, I've never suggested that evolution should persist unchanged in the case of single pieces of evidence, and have even given you some of the few examples of what could disprove it outright, so I don't know why you are asking me this question.

not in the last time i checked:

Retroviral promoters in the human genome | Bioinformatics | Oxford Academic

"ERV promoters drive tissue-specific and lineage-specific patterns of gene expression and contribute to expression divergence between paralogs. These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale"

or:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6771/full/403785a0.html

"Here we describe the opposite situation, where a viral gene has been sequestered to serve an important function in the physiology of a mammalian host"

Sigh. Over time, non-coding sequences can acquire mutations that cause them to start having useful function. Viral ERVs are no different. They don't serve any positive function the moment that they are inserted, which is easily observed. And my point about viral insertions not being consistent enough to explain away shared ERVs between humans and chimps still stands. In fact, some viruses are known to insert themselves in such a way that it causes cancer, such as HPV. Also, a personal request here: if you are going to give a source, make sure the full article is publicly available; I am not paying to read the whole thing, which I would like to do before giving consideration as to what the article says (this applies to your second source).

It is also important to note that DNA with no inherent coding potential (lacks a start codon), when inserted into a functional DNA strand, can indirectly affect gene function by changing the position of genes. Basically, moving them around such that genes suddenly are more heavily used or used less. In case you haven't noticed, despite the fact that people often get viral infections yearly, our species hasn't changed drastically in your lifetime.


again: are you sure? i can show you the opposite actually.[/QUOTE]
Oh really? You think some ERVs acquiring function later on disproves my point about how unlikely it is for humans and chimps to share ERVs with each other? Most viruses don't insert in the exact same spot every single time. And in order for an ERV to be passed down, the virus has to infect a sex cell, or a developing embryo very early in development. And I guess that it's just by coincidence that some of the ERVs that are in the same location in both humans and chimpanzees, also have acquired identical mutations such that they have identical functions. Way to go on correcting me and making the situation so much worse for yourself.

But I'll give you credit where credit is due; I did not know that ERVs had any function in humans before this point. I'd have brought it up earlier to strengthen my point if I did. I actually had to do some research of my own for this response. Good on you for providing a learning moment. Unfortunately, you accidentally gave me more fuel to strengthen my position.

and even in those cases we arent talking about my but about much less. so a 20 my fossil with DNA?

Maybe some small segments if the body ended up in unusually good conditions for DNA preservation. Even then, the vast majority of it would decay by that point. Unfortunately, the DNA segments left over are so few and so small, we can't actually tell if they belong to the fossil species or something else. After all, there are bacteria that live in the ground and such, and we inevitably contaminate fossils a bit when we dig them up.

not in this case:

DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: an ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae)

Again, not enough to go on to be sure about where that DNA came from. Life on this planet shares so many DNA sequences.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Except it is applied to all of life and all of time. Arrogance incarnate.

I highly doubt that you will find that is applied as such in the actual scientific literature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except it is applied to all of life and all of time. Arrogance incarnate.

-_- biology is the study of life. Evolution happens to be the unifying theory of biology. While it applies to the aspects of how life itself functions, it makes no suggestion as to how you should live your life. I fail to see the arrogance.

 

[mark kennedy]

-_- biology is the study of life. Evolution happens to be the unifying theory of biology. While it applies to the aspects of how life itself functions, it makes no suggestion as to how you should live your life. I fail to see the arrogance.

Evolution is a specific focus on changing traits, adaptive evolution is of particular importance. Biology is the study living systems and does not require a bunch of old bones and dirt informing us with regards to natural history. Darwinism was synthesized with Mendelian genetics not because biology or genetics needed it, it leaches off the sciences. The unified theory of biology was the DNA double helix, a molecular architecture all living systems share. That science grew to become genomics while Darwinism contributes nothing except a seething contempt for any causation, organic or inorganic, due to God acting in time and space doing what only God can do.

 

[xianghua]

Do you have a single evidence for this creation-out-of-nothing process?

sure. do you think that a robot with a living traits (like self replication and made from organic matter) is evidence for design?

Ah, so you accept that I may be right about the whole horse series, that the modern horse, zebra, and donkey could have evolved from the Hyracotherium.

maybe yes and maybe no. but it will still not be evidence for evolution. only a variation in the horse family.

Uh no, the basic timetable has been known and has changed little for years.

again: the timetable for a lots of kinds is changing everytime. till 2010 anyone thought that tetrapods evolved near 370my. but in 2010 they found a fossils that change this view.

Once more, I say dinosaur fossils date older than hominid fossils because dinosaurs lived much earlier than hominids. Do you agree that this is why dinosaur fossils date earlier?

yes. i said that its possible too. but its also possible that human population was just too small.

From what I can tell, scraps of DNA may be many millions of years old in some situations. However we cannot tell for sure, because we don't have enough DNA to tell if it was from the animal in question. There were many years for contamination to set in from elsewhere.

not in this case:

"To check for possible errors in the original sequence of S. albidum and to eliminate the possibility of contamination of the P. pseudocarolinensis sample from S. albidum, we newly determined the rbcL sequence of Sassafras albidum and compared it with the sequence from GenBank . The newly determined sequence was exactly the same as the sequence from GenBank. Thus, because the fossil sequence differs from all other sequences of Lauraceae reported to date, contamination seems highly unlikely."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution is a specific focus on changing traits, adaptive evolution is of particular importance. Biology is the study living systems and does not require a bunch of old bones and dirt informing us with regards to natural history. Darwinism was synthesized with Mendelian genetics not because biology or genetics needed it, it leaches off the sciences. The unified theory of biology was the DNA double helix, a molecular architecture all living systems share. That science grew to become genomics while Darwinism contributes nothing except a seething contempt for any causation, organic or inorganic, due to God acting in time and space doing what only God can do.

And yet the only person who brings up 'Darwinism' like a magician from his hat is you. No-one is talking about 'Darwinism' except you.
You are tilting at a windmill.

 

[xianghua]

in short...

Sigh. Over time, non-coding sequences can acquire mutations that cause them to start having useful function. Viral ERVs are no different. They don't serve any positive function the moment that they are inserted, which is easily observed. And my point about viral insertions not being consistent enough to explain away shared ERVs between humans and chimps still stands.

but this is the main problem. if those ervs (actually ervs parts) are functional. then its possible that they are an integral part of the genome by the designer and not a result of a viral infections. its also possible that those are indeed a viral infections. but in this case- if they are functional then their position in the genome isnt random at all. so your main claim about shared ervs is problematic.

Oh really? You think some ERVs acquiring function later on disproves my point about how unlikely it is for humans and chimps to share ERVs with each other?

you again assume that their function evolved after their insertions. but its only a belief, not a scientific claim.

Maybe some small segments if the body ended up in unusually good conditions for DNA preservation. Even then, the vast majority of it would decay by that point. Unfortunately, the DNA segments left over are so few and so small, we can't actually tell if they belong to the fossil species or something else. After all, there are bacteria that live in the ground and such, and we inevitably contaminate fossils a bit when we dig them up.

like i said above- not in this case:

"The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis."

"To check for possible errors in the original sequence of S. albidum and to eliminate the possibility of contamination of the P. pseudocarolinensis sample from S. albidum, we newly determined the rbcL sequence of Sassafras albidum and compared it with the sequence from GenBank . The newly determined sequence was exactly the same as the sequence from GenBank. Thus, because the fossil sequence differs from all other sequences of Lauraceae reported to date, contamination seems highly unlikely."

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is a specific focus on changing traits, adaptive evolution is of particular importance. Biology is the study living systems and does not require a bunch of old bones and dirt informing us with regards to natural history. Darwinism was synthesized with Mendelian genetics not because biology or genetics needed it, it leaches off the sciences. The unified theory of biology was the DNA double helix, a molecular architecture all living systems share. That science grew to become genomics while Darwinism contributes nothing except a seething contempt for any causation, organic or inorganic, due to God acting in time and space doing what only God can do.

Why don't you go find some people who subscribe to this "Darwinism" of yours and argue with them? Trying to convince anyone here that they exist or that we should care about them is a waste of your time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why don't you go find some people who subscribe to this "Darwinism" of yours and argue with them? Trying to convince anyone here that they exist or that we should care about them is a waste of your time.

Why don't you actually learn the terminology and history of the worldly philosophy you defend so venomously.

 

[mark kennedy]

And yet the only person who brings up 'Darwinism' like a magician from his hat is you. No-one is talking about 'Darwinism' except you.
You are tilting at a windmill.

That's because you don't know anything about the subject matter. It's why no one wants to talk about the actual definition because you'll have to face the fact that evolution isn't one thing but two, it's a scientificly investigated phenomenon and the presuppositional worldview of atheistic materialists. Once people realize that you guys don't get to hide behind the pretentious equivocation fallacy you call evolution. Couldn't have that, you guys might actually learn something about that subject matter.