Are there transitional fossils?

Jimmy D · May 25, 2017

"It's a bit rich accusing me of ignoring evidence when you can ignore the thousands of archeological papers, population studies, anthropolgical studies, cultural artefacts, etc etc if it helps maintain your worldview.

The same thing seemed to have happened all over the globe too, it's a head scratcher isn't it?"

You seemed to have missed this bit Justatrutheseeker. I'm sure you'll dismiss it easily enough by pronouncing all those areas of study wrong though.

I guess it's kind of futile arguing with someone who genuinely believes that they know better than the accumulated knowledge of the worlds biologists, paleontologists, anthropolgists, geologists, physicists and historians. You can never admit that you're wrong on any point can you?

Jimmy D · May 25, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
And you have given those subspecies names, Asian, African............ European........ So what is your problem except wanting to ignore that too?

LOL, I have given the different races names. Ever seen anyone refer to "Homo Sapiens Asian"?

Jimmy D · May 25, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
And yet....

https://bible.org/question/out-which-noah’s-three-sons-did-chinese-race-come

"Regarding Gen. 10:16-18 Morris writes:

The Biblical mention of a people in the Far East named “Sinim” (Isaiah 49:12), together with references in ancient secular histories to people in the Far East called “Sinae,” at least suggests the possibility that some of Sin’s descendants migrated eastward, while others went south into the land of Canaan. It is significant that the Chinese people have always been identified by the prefix “Sino-” (e.g., Sino-Japanese War; Sinology, the study of Chinese history). The name “Sin” is frequently encountered in Chinese names in the form “Siang” or its equivalent."

Japheth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

"The names of his sons and grandsons are found in ancient historical texts as relating to peoples and tribes residing mainly to the N and W of the Fertile Crescent. They appear to have spread from the Caucasus eastward into Central Asia and westward through Asia Minor to the islands and coastlands of Europe and perhaps all the way to Spain. Arabian traditions claim that one of Japheth’s sons was also the progenitor of the Chinese peoples.

—See CHART and MAP, Vol. 1, p. 329."

Japhet in China on JSTOR

"but most interesting of all is the specific claim by the Chinese Muslim writer Liu Chiu, c 1724 that Japhet ruled China, expanded by the 19th century Chinese Muslims, who identified Japhet with Fu Hsi, the first legendary emperor of China of c 3000 B.C.E..

Fu Hsi - The Full Wiki

Fu Xi :: The First Emperor of China :: Shaman | Diviner and Creator of the I Ching | Father of Chinese Civilization and Philosophy

LOL, What a hypocrite, suddenly the standard of evidence you'll accept seems to have lowered considerably, quelle surprise!

Justatruthseeker · May 25, 2017

Jimmy D said:
"It's a bit rich accusing me of ignoring evidence when you can ignore the thousands of archeological papers, population studies, anthropolgical studies, cultural artefacts, etc etc if it helps maintain your worldview.

Are those the same thousands of anthropological studies and papers that said colacanth was transitional to tetrapods until we found one alive and tested their DNA?

The same thing seemed to have happened all over the globe too, it's a head scratcher isn't it?"

Click to expand...

Not really, the sam 5 mass extinction events happened all over the globe too, and in the layer after all new life fully formed sprang up. And in modern times all the animals migrated from the middle east - this according to evolutions own belief.

You seemed to have missed this bit Justatrutheseeker. I'm sure you'll dismiss it easily enough by pronouncing all those areas of study wrong though.

No, you got raptors correct - at least one fossil matches reality and is comprised of one species with the rest subspecies. Too bad you cant get the other 90% corrected.

I guess it's kind of futile arguing with someone who genuinely believes that they know better than the accumulated knowledge of the worlds biologists, paleontologists, anthropolgists, geologists, physicists and historians. You can never admit that you're wrong on any point can you?

And that's what they believed about the colecanth too, that they were correct. As a matter of fact I bet you used that same argument when people challenged it as a transitional to the tetrapod. And one and all of them were wrong. Reliance on the majority instead of presenting evidence is a logical falacy, something your quite prone too.

Justatruthseeker · May 25, 2017

Jimmy D said:
LOL, I have given the different races names. Ever seen anyone refer to "Homo Sapiens Asian"?

But then you and they are ignoring their scientific definitions. I certainly didnt write them, I just follow them, as without them people make whatever claims they like, like finches interbreeding in front of their noses being separate species. You are just upset because you know you are practicing pseudoscience by ignoring those definitions.

Justatruthseeker · May 25, 2017

Jimmy D said:
LOL, What a hypocrite, suddenly the standard of evidence you'll accept seems to have lowered considerably, quelle surprise!

At least I aint ignoring finches interbreeding right in front of my eyes....... Now that is hypicritical indeed coming from you and your propensity to ignore an entire world of species with subspecies within them and maybe so far someone presented raptors as the only one that matched reality. Yah that's rich indeed from someone that wont even accept scientific definitions.

Coming from someone like you that ignores everything that doesnt fit his system of beliefs I take that as a compliment.... At least I had an explanation for every one and rational at that, your defense in every post has been to attack the poster and never present any evidence.

Justatruthseeker · May 25, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Who knows indeed? It seems you certainly don't. Your assertions that the entire human race developed from one family of eight 4500 years ago is demonstrably nonsense.

Take China for example, we have evidence of a continuous culture dating back 10,000 years.

Jiahu culture - 7000 to 5800 BC
Chinese proto-writing existed in Jiahu around 7000 BC

Excavation of a Peiligang culture site in Xinzheng county, Henan, found a community that flourished in 5,500 to 4,900 BC, with evidence of agriculture, constructed buildings, pottery, and burial of the dead.

The Yellow River valley began to establish itself as a center of Yangshao culture (5000 BC to 3000 BC)

The Bronze Age is also represented at the Lower Xiajiadian culture (2200–1600 BC[20]) site in northeast China. Sanxingdui located in what is now Sichuan province is believed to be the site of a major ancient city, of a previously unknown Bronze Age culture (between 2000 and 1200 BC).

Xia dynasty (2070–1600 BC)

Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BC)

Are you suggesting that two people off the ark legged it to China and gave birth to a couple of Chinese babies who created a thriving population with completely different religious traditions, method of writing, art, language etc etc?

But wait, at the time of the flood they'd been even more busy, they'd also spread across asia, diversifying into even more races and cultures.....

It's a bit rich accusing me of ignoring evidence when you can ignore the thousands of archeological papers, population studies, anthropolgical studies, cultural artefacts, etc etc if it helps maintain your worldview.

I suppose there's no real reason to expect any continuity of the religion of Noah's family after they've just witnessed their god directly chatting to their Dad and destroying the rest of life on Earth in a vengeful flood. They probably just forgot about passing any of that to the next generation and created a new totally alien religion.

The same thing seemed to have happened all over the globe too, it's a head scratcher isn't it?

Anyway, this thread is about transitional fossils, of which there are plenty as we've seen.

You forgot the tower of Babel, where all of mankind after the flood had been gathered together, and where the diversification of religion and races began. You know, when each was separated.

Of course you happened to forget that every one of those religions have a flood mentioned. But like any story told by word of mouth it changes over time. Which is why the Hebrew were so careful in transcribing. Their is continuity, in almost every religion, its just name and small details that vary. Whether it was Christ nailed to the cross or Odin to the tree. Wether it was eight people on an ark or Gilgamesh on a boat.

This thread is about transitional fossils which you have yet to show one, that cant more easily be explained as simply a subspecies in the species. You know, just like we see in the observational world around us which you ignore when it comes to the classification of fossils. You are just mad because I already showed your high priests cant even follow their own scientific definitions that they wrote. Which also means every paper that they wrote that conflicts with those definitions is in error too. You know this, and that's why you are so aggravated you resort to only personal attacks every single post. But I am not surprised being you have no science to back you up that conforms to the scientific definitions, just pseudoscience.

So when you get tired of the attack game let me know and maybe we will have a rational discussion. Until then I will have to content myself with fighting fire with fire.

doubtingmerle · May 25, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
This thread is about transitional fossils which you have yet to show one, that cant more easily be explained as simply a subspecies in the species. You know, just like we see in the observational world around us which you ignore when it comes to the classification of fossils.

Hah. Which species is the Eohippus part of?

Which species it Tiktaalik part of?

Which species is Diadomodon part of?

Which species is Rodocetus part of?

Why are these all part of a long series of fossils show a clear transition from one state to another. Why are they in the period of time appropriate for that stage of evolution?

Is there anything you would possibly accept as a transitional?

doubtingmerle · May 25, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Of course you happened to forget that every one of those religions have a flood mentioned.

And you forgot to mention that none of those flood stories said the entire world was wiped out, and people started all over again after they relocated from the Middle East.

doubtingmerle · May 25, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
But then you and they are ignoring their scientific definitions. I certainly didnt write them, I just follow them, as without them people make whatever claims they like, like finches interbreeding in front of their noses being separate species. You are just upset because you know you are practicing pseudoscience by ignoring those definitions.

Excuse me, who is ignoring scientific definitions? I posted two lengthy links showing the scientific definition of species, and how there is a whole lot of gray area when defining species.

You have not posted one single definition accepted in science that said that every ancestor of a dog should be regarded as a member of the dog species. You have not posted one single definition accepted in science that said all descendents of a common ancestor must be regarded as the same species. You have not posted one single definition that said that if two groups had gene transfer in the recent past, that they must be regarded as the same species.

In addition to the two lengthy discussions I also posted a quick Websters definition, but even that did not say what you claim.

But even if you are right, it means nothing. Arguing over the meaning of the word species is just an argument of semantics. You deny it, but that is what arguing semantics means-- arguing over the meaning of a word. Look up "arguing semantics". When you argue over the meaning of the word species you are arguing semantics.

I will repeat. The important thing about finches is that most likely the original finch ancestor of the Galapagos did not have any of the genes for any of the special functions they do. Those things evolved in the finches over time. Saying they crossbred to create all those different groups is silly. Where did the other extremes come from to breed with? That is the important thing.

doubtingmerle · May 25, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Actually bottlenecks prove your theory that the genome is evolving is incorrect.

And yet an extinction event occurred, but you dont find it odd that only the Cheetah was affected?

That's odd, because the fossil record seems to have missed it. Nowhere does it show an event where every species went extinct. Why wouldn't it be recorded in the fossil record?

And there was no significant mass extinction of any kind when the cheetah went though its bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. That seems to indicate that this affected only the cheetah.

Just as we are doing by selectively breeding only purebreed dogs with other purebreed dogs and creating the very bottleneck we see in the Cheetah. Yet you keep ignoring that over 100 subspecies of dog came from the wolf.

Go back and read my posts. I have talked a lot about the many subspecies of dog descended from one wolf ancestor.

So do you have actual DNA of the Cheetah before this extinction event to compare them with? Mw thinks not.

No, but we have the modern cheetahs, and people have done an exhaustive study of what they find from the existing DNA. I gave you a link to a scientific paper on the subject.

doubtingmerle · May 25, 2017

mark kennedy said:
Didn't used to and you have to consider what you consider primary source from antiquity. (See Usher Annals of the World)

I don't consider Usher a primary source.

mark kennedy · May 25, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
I don't consider Usher a primary source.

He's not, the Scriptures are and his work is based on an unbroken genealogy spanning human history. For me a living history attached to an historical narrative has all the marks of credible primary source material. On the other hand old bones and dirt are secondary sources and while they have their story to tell, what the fossils are saying and what I hear from Darwinians are invariably two different things.

mark kennedy · May 25, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Because young earth creationists are using the same flawed dating techniques based on the rate of today's clocks without taking into account time dilation when God "stretched out the heavens", nor do they properly translate "hayah" the second word of the second verse, nor how long Adam was in the Garden to name every animal brought before him.

That's quite possibly the longest run on sentence of the thread. It's especially remarkable since I don't really dispute the age of the earth or the universe, just consider it irrelevant. All we know from the clear testimony of Scripture is that the 'heaven and the earth', were created, 'in the beginning'. Creation week is another matter entirely since it focuses on the providential preparations for and the creation of, life in general and man in particular. Secondly, there is no indication of how many originally created kinds there were but I take it on faith that the numbers were sufficiently low that Adam could name them all in a relatively short time.

Now I don't know anything about 'time dilation', nor does it concern me greatly. When I started this experiment in natural theology and evidencial apologetics I had to choose between the life sciences and geology/cosmology, I chose Biology in general and genetics in particular.

Which I seriously doubt took just a day............

I don't.

Also had he not lived in the Garden long enough to watch animals mate and die, how would he comprehend what the punishment for sin was had he never observed it? I can't believe God would punish Adam unless Adam was able to see animals die and could comprehend what that punishment would entail. The chronology of the Bible starts when Adam leaves the garden, his days in the garden are not numbered as he was then not subject to death.

When the Scriptures are silent on a point I don't spend a lot of time chasing down presuppositional speculation. The fall appears to have happened shortly after creation so death and the penalty of sin, certainly what would or would not do, falls squarely in the realm of conjecture. I start with what is there, actually in the narrative and go from there.

Have a nice day
Mark

Justatruthseeker · May 26, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Hah. Which species is the Eohippus part of?

Since you believe it's an ancient horse try the horse species.

Which species it Tiktaalik part of?

Who knows, your tree doesn't seem to go anywhere but to extinction.

Which species is Diadomodon part of?

Don't know, your tree leads nowhere except to extinction.

Which species is Rodocetus part of?

Only an evolutionist would see a nonexistent link between whatever led to the hippopotamus and the others.

Not to mention all the missing original ancestors between those claimed imaginary links in every single one of them.

Why are these all part of a long series of fossils show a clear transition from one state to another. Why are they in the period of time appropriate for that stage of evolution?

Is there anything you would possibly accept as a transitional?

Only an evolutionists sees a clear line of fossils from the dolphin like creature to the whale like creature, but that's probably why every single one of your claimed original ancestors is missing, huh?

In case you haven't noticed you show me the end result, but where the split is to have occurred there can never be found a single creature on any of your trees. So you show me an extinct creature fully set in its form, draw imaginary lines back to imaginary ancestors and see an imaginary link. Open your eyes so you can see the light, it's time to stop imagining things.

Justatruthseeker · May 26, 2017

mark kennedy said:
That's quite possibly the longest run on sentence of the thread. It's especially remarkable since I don't really dispute the age of the earth or the universe, just consider it irrelevant. All we know from the clear testimony of Scripture is that the 'heaven and the earth', were created, 'in the beginning'. Creation week is another matter entirely since it focuses on the providential preparations for and the creation of, life in general and man in particular. Secondly, there is no indication of how many originally created kinds there were but I take it on faith that the numbers were sufficiently low that Adam could name them all in a relatively short time.

Now I don't know anything about 'time dilation', nor does it concern me greatly. When I started this experiment in natural theology and evidencial apologetics I had to choose between the life sciences and geology/cosmology, I chose Biology in general and genetics in particular.

I don't.

When the Scriptures are silent on a point I don't spend a lot of time chasing down presuppositional speculation. The fall appears to have happened shortly after creation so death and the penalty of sin, certainly what would or would not do, falls squarely in the realm of conjecture. I start with what is there, actually in the narrative and go from there.

Have a nice day
Mark

If long sentences is your only complaint, I'm happy.....

But that's just it, the scripture remains silent, yet you just speculated it was a short interval of time between when he was placed in the garden and his expulsion, even if you said you didn't speculate.

So you believe God would punish Adam without Adam being able to comprehend what death was, having never observed it?

Since we have millions of seperate kinds that we can observe, I wouldn't hold to fast to that belief there were just a few, unless you think God created them after the flood?

But you could easily prove me wrong by naming them all in a day.........

Adam spent an untold amount of time in the garden, watching creatures live and die, naming them one by one, until he realized he had no companion. Having spent this untold time alone, he willingly disobeyed God instead of fearing continued loneliness and so partook of the forbidden act and chose to enter death with Eve instead of being alone. That's why the fall is blamed on Adam, he willingly partook, was not deceived.

You have a nice day too!

Justatruthseeker · May 26, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
That's odd, because the fossil record seems to have missed it. Nowhere does it show an event where every species went extinct. Why wouldn't it be recorded in the fossil record?

It is, you just refuse to accept that none of those fossil creatures exist today, that's why they are extinct.

And there was no significant mass extinction of any kind when the cheetah went though its bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. That seems to indicate that this affected only the cheetah.

Did you read your own paper? It clearly stated there was a mass extinction that affected all the large animals.

Go back and read my posts. I have talked a lot about the many subspecies of dog descended from one wolf ancestor.

Yet see no problem with naming all the subspecies in the fossil record as separate species...... even if we did that with the dog we would come to the wrong conclusions about its lineage......

No, but we have the modern cheetahs, and people have done an exhaustive study of what they find from the existing DNA. I gave you a link to a scientific paper on the subject.

And the next evolutionist that does extensive research will publish papers to promote his new idea....... which will conflict with this extensive research........ and then you'll be extolling the virtues of the new idea as truth, without thinking that what you believe as truth now would no longer be true, even if you are promoting it as true right now......

We will see how this "truth" pans out over time, since almost everything they claimed as "truth" 50 years ago has been overturned...... every generation thinks what it believes is true, and the next generation falsifies it and believes what they believe is true, and on and on and on throughout history..... Darwin believed those Finches were reproductively isolated, that wasn't true. Named them separate species based upon a false belief. Yet you spent pages trying to defend that belief. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept as truth everything they claim is truth, or that you believe is true. Apparently you will accept falsehoods just because they tell you to, even if the evidence is against them.

Jimmy D · May 26, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Are those the same thousands of anthropological studies and papers that said colacanth was transitional to tetrapods until we found one alive and tested their DNA?

I believe Sarah (I think) tried to explain this to you but obviously it fell on deaf ears. Still, two things.... It would be foolish to suggest "one thing is wrong so everything is wrong!" and the only reason that you are aware of this is because it was revealed to you by those foolish scientists you enjoy deriding... a tad hypocritical no?

Besides, this doesn't address what I wrote.

Justatruthseeker said:
Not really, the sam 5 mass extinction events happened all over the globe too, and in the layer after all new life fully formed sprang up. And in modern times all the animals migrated from the middle east - this according to evolutions own belief.

"In the layer after all new life fully formed sprang up." - Paleontolgists would disagree, I should imagine theolgists would too. Have you got any evidence of this?

"In modern times all animals migrated from the middle east" - Any evidence of that? Citations?

Evolution is a scientific theory, it is not a conscious entity that has beliefs.

Justatruthseeker said:
No, you got raptors correct - at least one fossil matches reality and is comprised of one species with the rest subspecies. Too bad you cant get the other 90% corrected.

This has nothing to do with what I wrote. Not surprising though, when in doubt repeat the mantra!

Justatruthseeker said:
And that's what they believed about the colecanth too, that they were correct. As a matter of fact I bet you used that same argument when people challenged it as a transitional to the tetrapod. And one and all of them were wrong. Reliance on the majority instead of presenting evidence is a logical falacy, something your quite prone too.

And who got it right? Was it you, or was it those deluded scientists? Hypocrite.

Logical fallacy? Like one detail is wrong - ergo all science is wrong? You're priceless.

Jimmy D · May 26, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
But then you and they are ignoring their scientific definitions. I certainly didnt write them, I just follow them, as without them people make whatever claims they like, like finches interbreeding in front of their noses being separate species. You are just upset because you know you are practicing pseudoscience by ignoring those definitions.

No I'm not, did you read further as I suggested? Do you still think the dictionary definition is the same as the scientific defintion.

Can't you bring yourself to admit that your mistaken and that different races of humans aren't classed sub species? Come on, it's not difficult what is their scientific nomentclature?

While the scientific name of a species is a binomen, the scientific name of a subspecies is a trinomen - a binomen followed by a subspecific name.

Panthera tigris altaica
Homo sapiens ..........

So who is ignoring scientific definitions? Nothing to do with finches so change the record. Hypocrite.

Jimmy D · May 26, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
At least I aint ignoring finches interbreeding right in front of my eyes....... Now that is hypicritical indeed coming from you and your propensity to ignore an entire world of species with subspecies within them and maybe so far someone presented raptors as the only one that matched reality. Yah that's rich indeed from someone that wont even accept scientific definitions.

You're sounding like a stuck record now Justa. For the last time, no one cares about whether you think species are correctly defined or identified. It's been explained to you hundreds of times that it has no bearing on the TOE or the existence of transitional fossils. If anything it would confirm what we'd expect to see about the inter-relatedness of life.

Are there transitional fossils?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency