Are there transitional fossils?

Astrophile · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
All dogs are merely different infraspecific taxa in the canine species. Asians, Africans, Latinos etc are merely different infraspecific taxa in the homo sapiens species. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer are merely different infraspecific taxa in that species. I've given you examples from the beginning, I fail to see what was so difficult to understand?

Apparently they cant tell babies and adults of the same species apart, so the odds of them identifying subspecies is astronomical. But if you dont know how to identify them, then you cant say with any certainty that those classifications in the fossil record are separate species, now can you.

As I have said before, I can't find anything in common between your understanding of biology and mine. You appear to have acquired a small number of facts, which you keep on repeating, without trying to integrate them into a general understanding of living things.

I am not a biologist, so I have to accept the authority of professional biologists. They are the people who define species, who study genetics, taxonomy, ecology, biogeography, fossils, etc., and who say that evolution is the unifying theory of biology. Anybody who wants to convince the world that evolution is false has got to show that they have a thorough knowledge of biology and that their explanation of the biological facts is better than the evolutionary explanation. That is why you will have to do the hard work of writing a book that is good enough to convince professional biologists rather than repeating the same things on internet forums.

Justatruthseeker · May 19, 2017

Astrophile said:
As I have said before, I can't find anything in common between your understanding of biology and mine. You appear to have acquired a small number of facts, which you keep on repeating, without trying to integrate them into a general understanding of living things.

I am not a biologist, so I have to accept the authority of professional biologists. They are the people who define species, who study genetics, taxonomy, ecology, biogeography, fossils, etc., and who say that evolution is the unifying theory of biology. Anybody who wants to convince the world that evolution is false has got to show that they have a thorough knowledge of biology and that their explanation of the biological facts is better than the evolutionary explanation. That is why you will have to do the hard work of writing a book that is good enough to convince professional biologists rather than repeating the same things on internet forums.

Quit ignoring that every species on this planet has several subspecies within it, and that warden managed to find one in the fossil record out of thousands that matches reality. Of course that one that matches reality falsifies the ones that don't, as at the genus level we have one species and the rest subspecies.

If our understanding of biology differs I suggest you learn more biology then. Apparently you still can't see an entire world of living examples that falsifies your fossil classifications.

No you don't have to accept their authority, that's a cop out. You got your own mind capable of deductive reasoning. Reliance on the majority has been shown over and over throughout history to be unreliable. Every 200 years our paradigms change radically and what was once believed to be true turns out to be false. And not a single thing we believe now was brought in by the majority. Everything we now believe in in fact overturned what the majority once believed and was started by those that did not accept the majority viewpoint.

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Studying those finches falsifies evolutionary change. They were declared separate species because Darwin believed they were reproductively isolated. Actual DNA tests have shown they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. Since they were never reproductively isolated speciation never took place. They simply refuse to correct the mistaken classification simply because they have the name Darwin before them.

Please document that the finches Galapagos finches are the same species. From what I can see there are 14 or 15 species. See DNA Reveals How Darwin's Finches Evolved .

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Sort of like 100 different infraspecific taxa came from wolves? Am I the only one here that sees inconsistency in your insisting hundreds of different variations are impossible from two? The wolf already contained within its genome the possibility for those hundreds of variations. Just as the first two equus contained within their genome all the possible combinations we see today in that genus.

Nothing to wonder at at all, the data exists right before your eyes, barking for attention while you ignore those hundreds of variations that indeed must have been possible already in the genome.

Many variations can evolve from two, given enough time. That is not the issue. The issue is how AV can claim all the varieties of zebra, horse, and donkey came from two Equus taken on the ark several thousand years ago. That requires very rapid evolution to create many species in that period of time from an extremely limit genetic base. If one species can divide into a dozen in 4000 years, and each of those 12 divide into 12 new species in the next 4000 years, and so on every 4000 years, in 100,000 years we would have more than a trillion trillion species.

Do you agree with AV that the horse, zebra, and donkey, and all their relatives as listed here -- Equus (genus) - Wikipedia -- evolved into all these different species in several thousand years? If so, why do you have a problem with the idea that 14 species of finch evolved from one ancestor in the course of millions of years?

Concerning dogs, they have been around 40 million years. When people began domesticating them about 15,000 years ago, there were many thousands of dogs, with a diverse gene pool. So dogs had a head start in working with a diverse gene pool. When we added in intense pressure from human breeding, they quickly diverged. But in spite of this there is only one species of domestic dog.

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Exactly what we see with dogs. Call those infraspecific taxa cousins of you like but evolution is not needed to explain that variation. There are no multiple species in the line, just their incorrect classifications of those infraspecific taxa as seperate species. Your raptor genus is a prime example of the proper classification which matches observational data.

Uh, the Hyracotherium is not a intraspecific taxa with the zebra. They are very different. They are not the same species. They are not even the same genus.

And the evolution from Hyracotherium to zebra went through many different genera in the path of evolution. How can you possibly claim they are the same species?

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Photoshopped ... just what I thought.

Uh, no, fossil replicas are not photoshopped. They are made from casts made from the actual rocks which match the shape of the actual bones, and thus have the same size and shape as the original bones.

Tell me, Merle, how does one get a three-dimensional representation of a complete skeleton from it being etched into rock?

A fossil is not an etching. It is a 3-dimensional replica of the original.

Justatruthseeker · May 19, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Please document that the finches Galapagos finches are the same species. From what I can see there are 14 or 15 species. See DNA Reveals How Darwin's Finches Evolved .

Because you won't surrender your false belief that they are seperate species even though they are all mating right in front of the researchers noses.

As long as you keep refusing to accept what species are, you'll always have a species problem.

Genomes reveal Darwin finches' messy family tree - BBC News

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

They aren't hybridising. What they continually ignore is the same thing you are ignoring. If they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, they were never reproductively isolated. Therefore speciation never occurred. Therefore they can't hybridise because they never underwent speciation to begin with.

All you got to do to prove me wrong and them right is tell me which of the seven processes led to their speciation? We will compare the facts to the scientific definitions and conclude falsity or correctness from there.

Speciation - Wikipedia

Justatruthseeker · May 19, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Many variations can evolve from two, given enough time. That is not the issue. The issue is how AV can claim all the varieties of zebra, horse, and donkey came from two Equus taken on the ark several thousand years ago. That requires very rapid evolution to create many species in that period of time from an extremely limit genetic base. If one species can divide into a dozen in 4000 years, and each of those 12 divide into 12 new species in the next 4000 years, and so on every 4000 years, in 100,000 years we would have more than a trillion trillion species.

Your assumptions are not based upon reality. Why don't you take the known human reproduction rate as it is right now per year, and derive what the population must have been say 4,000 years ago? You will come up with the wrong answer.

Again, what you see in dogs is an accelerated timeframe. If man had not intervened there would not be 100's of breeds, but only 4 or 5 of the hardiest capable of surviving in the wild. Most of the offshoot breeds, if they were even formed, would not survive. I say if they were formed because without man bringing them together only geological changes like famine, disasters, etc to cause a change in territory would bring together different breeds. They would not divide into 12 which divide into 12...... you don't see that happening in nature now, so why must you pretend it happened that way in the past? To try to falsify the belief with an incorrect supposition that does not match reality?

Do you agree with AV that the horse, zebra, and donkey, and all their relatives as listed here -- Equus (genus) - Wikipedia -- evolved into all these different species in several thousand years? If so, why do you have a problem with the idea that 14 species of finch evolved from one ancestor in the course of millions of years?

Because your supposition they are separate species to begin with is flawed. You would call dogs seperate species too if you could.

Concerning dogs, they have been around 40 million years. When people began domesticating them about 15,000 years ago, there were many thousands of dogs, with a diverse gene pool. So dogs had a head start in working with a diverse gene pool. When we added in intense pressure from human breeding, they quickly diverged. But in spite of this there is only one species of domestic dog.

You won't mind showing me a 40 million year old dog fossil would you?

Ahh I see, your forgetting to add time dilation into your radiometric dating techniques. Understandable you would come to the wrong conclusion....

Before you answer you best think about the twin and how he was wrong in what he believed as well about time.

Justatruthseeker · May 19, 2017

Ancient Dog Skull Shows Early Pet Domestication

Now I guess we could use radiocarbon dating on the fossil canine skull, but then shouldn't we then accept radiocarbon dating of Dino fossils to be between 45,000 years and 85,000 years? Ahh, but suddenly it's no good unless they want to use it for their pet theory (pet theory, double innuendo there), I understand, cough, cough.

Wait till AV reads this post, your going to get an earful then, or will that be an eyeful?

Justatruthseeker · May 19, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Uh, the Hyracotherium is not a intraspecific taxa with the zebra. They are very different. They are not the same species. They are not even the same genus.

And the evolution from Hyracotherium to zebra went through many different genera in the path of evolution. How can you possibly claim they are the same species?

Because I don't believe there is any relation between the two at all.

Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
"This small, dog-sized animal was once considered to be the earliest known member of Equidae before the type species, H. leporinum, was reclassified as a palaeothere, a perissodactyl family basal to both horses and brontotheres.[3] The remaining species are now thought to belong to different genera, such as Eohippus, which had previously been synonymised with Hyracotherium."

I thought we were discussing horses, not some unrelated species. If someone else is confused they are related and I misread, please excuse.

Again, they classified babies and adults of the "same" species incorrectly. Convince me any of them are correct if they can't even get babies and adults of the same species right?

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
but then shouldn't we then accept radiocarbon dating of Dino fossils to be between 45,000 years and 85,000 years?

No. All classic dinosaurs date to millions of years old. There were no dinosaurs 45,000 years ago (unless you count birds).

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Because I don't believe there is any relation between the two at all.

Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
"This small, dog-sized animal was once considered to be the earliest known member of Equidae before the type species, H. leporinum, was reclassified as a palaeothere, a perissodactyl family basal to both horses and brontotheres.[3] The remaining species are now thought to belong to different genera, such as Eohippus, which had previously been synonymised with Hyracotherium."

I thought we were discussing horses, not some unrelated species.

Science disagrees. Hyracotherium is regarded as the ancestor of the horse and zebra. It led to the Eohippus, which is now regarded a different genus, that led to the Orohippus and all the other fossils leading up to the horse and zebra.

What about the Eohippus or Merychippus? Do you think they are in the horse family?

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Your assumptions are not based upon reality. Why don't you take the known human reproduction rate as it is right now per year, and derive what the population must have been say 4,000 years ago? You will come up with the wrong answer.

That would assume human population always grew at that rate. Nobody believes that.

You won't mind showing me a 40 million year old dog fossil would you?

Leptocyon fossils are found 40 million years ago, and are considered in the dog family. See Your Dog's Pedigree Goes Back 40 Million Years . There was plenty of time to evolve a wide range of genetic material in dogs by the time humans domesticated them. This is far different from AV's claim, that 2 Equus on the ark several thousand years ago evolved into different species of horse, donkey and zebra.

doubtingmerle · May 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Because you won't surrender your false belief that they are seperate species even though they are all mating right in front of the researchers noses.

OK, so you agree that all the finches in the Galapagos evolved from the limited number of ancestors that reached the islands years ago? That was Darwin's point. Where you draw the line as to what constitutes a species is merely an argument over what to call the various creatures. The definition of "species" is complex.

And by the way, the article you quoted argues that, although it was thought there are 15 species of finch on the Galapagos, that there are actually 18. So it does not support your claim that we should reduce the number of species from 15 to 1. It says we should increase it to 18.

As long as you keep refusing to accept what species are, you'll always have a species problem.

Genomes reveal Darwin finches' messy family tree - BBC News

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

Interesting study. I don't understand how this refutes evolution. Evolution predicts that the distinction between species would be messy, and not always well defined.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

OK, but Darwin observed that finches on the Galapagos were fulfilling the roles of many different birds on the mainland. Why is it that in the mainland we see all these different birds, but on the Galapogos everything was a variation of the finch? Darwin theorized that a small group of finches ended up on the islands, with no serious avian competition, and so they evolved to be like many different mainland birds.

Ed1wolf · May 19, 2017

Gene2memE said:
"Transitional" species can still be around while their descendants are. The forebear population may be largely unchanged, while the descendant population(s) can go through rapid morphological changes, resulting in what would be identified as a new species.

There's no reason why an antecedent species needs to go extinct when descendant species develop.

They do if they occupy the same ecological niche, this is Evolution 101. And there is evidence some of these so-called transitions did.

Justatruthseeker · May 20, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
No. All classic dinosaurs date to millions of years old. There were no dinosaurs 45,000 years ago (unless you count birds).

And yet radiocarbon dating their fossils gives dates of 45,000 to 85,000.

Why is it acceptable to accept radiocarbon dates on canine fossils but refuse to accept them on Dino fossils? Besides that they want to believe one is correct and the other incorrect because it doesn't agree with their pet theory?

Justatruthseeker · May 20, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
OK, so you agree that all the finches in the Galapagos evolved from the limited number of ancestors that reached the islands years ago? That was Darwin's point. Where you draw the line as to what constitutes a species is merely an argument over what to call the various creatures.

No, they didn't evolve at all. Two subspecies merely mated and the joining of genomes created different subspecies, just like we observe with dogs.

The definition of "species" is complex.

What do you find difficult to understand when they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their noses?

And by the way, the article you quoted argues that, although it was thought there are 15 species of finch on the Galapagos, that there are actually 18. So it does not support your claim that we should reduce the number of species from 15 to 1. It says we should increase it to 18.

But they ignore they are mating right in front of their noses too.

Interesting study. I don't understand how this refutes evolution. Evolution predicts that the distinction between species would be messy, and not always well defined.

What did you find not well defined about birds mating right in front of their noses?

OK, but Darwin observed that finches on the Galapagos were fulfilling the roles of many different birds on the mainland. Why is it that in the mainland we see all these different birds, but on the Galapogos everything was a variation of the finch? Darwin theorized that a small group of finches ended up on the islands, with no serious avian competition, and so they evolved to be like many different mainland birds.

Sigh. You don't have any serious competition, don't see you evolving to fill the roll of other animals. They are not evolving at all. Once again it is their mating of the different subspecies that brings together different genomes which causes changes in characteristics. Just like you see in dogs. You know, Husky mates with Mastiff and the Chinook appears in the record. There is not one single thing you observe that is different between the two examples except you keep saying the evolved and they didn't evolve at all. You keep calling them separate species yet clearly understand dogs are the same species. You refuse to accept what is occurring right in front of their noses simply because they have the name Darwin attached to them.

Must I show you where other birds that were thought to be reproductively isolated from others when found to be mating were reclassified as the same species? So apparently they know the right thing to do, just refuse to do it.

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 20, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
And yet radiocarbon dating their fossils gives dates of 45,000 to 85,000.

Why is it acceptable to accept radiocarbon dates on canine fossils but refuse to accept them on Dino fossils? Besides that they want to believe one is correct and the other incorrect because it doesn't agree with their pet theory?

Give one example of him accepting radiocarbon dates on canine fossils to with several thousand years. Or is this, again, just another example of you saying that you're right because you say that you're right?

Justatruthseeker · May 20, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
That would assume human population always grew at that rate. Nobody believes that.

Leptocyon fossils are found 40 million years ago, and are considered in the dog family. See Your Dog's Pedigree Goes Back 40 Million Years . There was plenty of time to evolve a wide range of genetic material in dogs by the time humans domesticated them. This is far different from AV's claim, that 2 Equus on the ark several thousand years ago evolved into different species of horse, donkey and zebra.

But only an evolutionist because of his incorrect classifications would believe these are related to dogs.
View media item 54855
And wiki says 10 to 20 million, so your paper is only off by 20 million, so if there is a 20 million year error rate?

Justatruthseeker · May 20, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Give one example of him accepting radiocarbon dates on canine fossils to with several thousand years. Or is this, again, just another example of you saying that you're right because you say that you're right?

I did, you just never read it like you never read anything.

Are there transitional fossils?

You are trying to jump into a conversation you know nothing about nor have the knowledge to comprehend.

Are there transitional fossils?

Newbie

Newbie

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency