Are there transitional fossils?

[mark kennedy]

If I am walking through a woods and find a watch, I would conclude the watch was probably formed by cutting and molding parts out of metal and plastic.

If I find a chocolate chip cookie, I assume ingredients were mixed and baked in an oven.

If I find a dog, I assume nutrients from a mother dog grew the dog embryo in a womb as directed by DNA.

If I find (in a microscope I am carrying) a bacteria with a flagellum, I assume it probably was made at the direction of DNA that had evolved from other DNA in other bacteria.

If you find a bacteria with a flagellum, how do you assume it was made? I am not asking who you think made it. I am asking how you think it was made.

All of the assumptions above are based on past knowledge of how similar things are made.

I'm not much of an I'D proponent but I understand what they are saying and it's a commonly held view. Newton even had an I'D argument in Principia. When I went to the bookstore to buy Behes Darwin's Black Box, I couldn't find it. I asked on of the clerks who looked it up left about a minute and returned with the book. I asked her where she found it, she said the Biology section. I chuckled about that all the way home, of course it was. That's really all it is, a description of biomolecular mechanisms followed by an irreducible complexity. Darwinians mistakenly consider it creationism but Biblical doctrine is another intellectual animal entirely.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Why, don't you know what your own scientific definition means?

Would you feel better if I used the term subspecies? Would that change anything at all except your delaying tactics to divert the subject?


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.

I also went to correct you on saying there are infraspecific taxa of humans. There is not. Perhaps one day. We are 99.9 percent the same.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When I went to the bookstore to buy Behes Darwin's Black Box, I couldn't find it. I asked on of the clerks who looked it up left about a minute and returned with the book. I asked her where she found it, she said the Biology section. I chuckled about that all the way home, of course it was.

I would have been RIAL (rolling in the aisle laughing).

 

[mark kennedy]

I would have been RIAL (rolling in the aisle laughing).

Did you ever read it? That's actually what it is, he talks a lot about Biology and then applies his irreducible complexity arguments. It's actually a pretty good lesson in molecular biology, no matter what you think about his ideology.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not much of an I'D proponent but I understand what they are saying and it's a commonly held view. Newton even had an I'D argument in Principia. When I went to the bookstore to buy Behes Darwin's Black Box, I couldn't find it. I asked on of the clerks who looked it up left about a minute and returned with the book. I asked her where she found it, she said the Biology section. I chuckled about that all the way home, of course it was. That's really all it is, a description of biomolecular mechanisms followed by an irreducible complexity. Darwinians mistakenly consider it creationism but Biblical doctrine is another intellectual animal entirely.

ID was concocted by the Discovery Institute as a Trojan Horse to insinuate biblical creationism into the public schools, as part of the ideological preparation (a "wedge" is what they called it) for the imposition of a totalitarian theocracy designed for them by the late R. J. Rushdooney. ID is Dominionist doctrine.

 

[pshun2404]

ID was concocted by the Discovery Institute as a Trojan Horse to insinuate biblical creationism into the public schools, as part of the ideological preparation (a "wedge" is what they called it) for the imposition of a totalitarian theocracy designed for them by the late R. J. Rushdooney. ID is Dominionist doctrine.

I agree Speed, and creationism should not be taught in science class, BUT nonetheless some of the questions that scientists who support the idea of seeing design in the evidence (regardless of their personal beliefs) are legitimate questions that should be explored objectively even if one does not believe in design as the cause.

Also totalitarian theocracy (no matter who is in charge) is not a good thing. In fact, no totalitarianism of any sort (even secular or worse atheist - see Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and so on) is a good thing. Down with totalitarianism!!!! Though this is way off topic...

 

[Astrophile]

There is no real burden of proof here, it's a variation of the watch and stone analogy of Paley in his famous book on Natural Theology. A man walking along the beach discovers a watch and a stone, any number of explanations could account for the stone but clearly the watch was designed. Paley goes into great detail about the spring mechanism and the gears.

The book was admired for its elegance and required reading at Cambridge.

The discovery of pulsars (also at Cambridge) may refute Paley's argument. Pulsars are more accurate time-keepers than most clocks and watches designed by human beings, but they were formed by a natural process (the collapse of the core of a massive star), and they were certainly not designed as timepieces.

 

[mark kennedy]

The discovery of pulsars (also at Cambridge) may refute Paley's argument. Pulsars are more accurate time-keepers than most clocks and watches designed by human beings, but they were formed by a natural process (the collapse of the core of a massive star), and they were certainly not designed as timepieces.

The analogy was a watch, the modern version of the concept is ireducibly complex molecular machines. I have no idea what pulsars have to do with it. However the pulsar clock in Poland was definitely designed

 

[PsychoSarah]

Whilst that is undoubtedly true, I've joined Warden in ignoring him. You've read one "huskies - finches" post you've read 'em all. Kudos to you for trying though.

It's the "human races" thing that makes me want to bang my head against a wall. The guy acts as if the most minor of mutations in skin and hair color couldn't happen, while also talking about DOGS. He'd have us thinking different colors of Corgis were different subspecies.

Ultimate and last counter to that idea I ever want to say, I don't think I'll bother with debating him on this anymore:
This is a paradox bearded dragon: http://www.dachiubeardeddragons.com/dragoncare/p12.jpg
The paradox refers to the fact that, over time, the lizards begin to lose their original scale pigments, leaving behind purple splotches. 50 years ago, they didn't exist. In fact, we even know the exact breeder that first produced them, the company Phantom Dragons. We know the mutation didn't exist when bearded dragons were originally brought to the US, as inbreeding and other poor breeding practices were prominent, and thus revealed such recessive genes quite quickly.

But, hey, if Justa wants to argue that since this is a recessive trait it could have still managed to hide, here's a leatherback bearded dragon https://rebeccab18blog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dsc_4431-1024x678.jpg
The gene that causes their scales to be small and thus feel smoother is dominant. No leatherbacks were present in the original populations introduced into Europe and the US. In fact, German leatherbacks, Italian leatherbacks, and US leatherbacks have a slightly different feel to their scales, as the trait is caused by a different mutation in all of these populations. This is a dominant gene, thus, only bearded dragons with this trait will pass it down to offspring. Thus, the mutations that cause this trait had to occur AFTER they had already been introduced into the US and European countries.

 

[xianghua]

Stepwise evolutionary pathways leading to the flagellum have been figured out long since.

wrong actually. they found that some parts of the flagellum are shared with the ttss system. that it! its like saying that if car and airplane shared some parts like wheels, fuel tank and so on- therefore they can evolve from each other. even if they was able to replicate themself- it cant prove they evolved from each other. the same for the flagellum.

 

[xianghua]

That sounds like old the argument of irreducible complexity, comparing the flagellum to five part mouse trap, take away one part and it doesnt work. There is no real burden of proof here, it's a variation of the watch and stone analogy of Paley in his famous book on Natural Theology. A man walking along the beach discovers a watch and a stone, any number of explanations could account for the stone but clearly the watch was designed. Paley goes into great detail about the spring mecanism and the gears.

The book was admired for its elogace and required reading at Cambrige. Darwin read it and said he enjoyed it very much. In college he simply accepted what he was taught and read, later he started having doubts and eventually developed an alternative way of seeing this. Behe went through the same thing, in college he accepted what he was told about Darwinian natural history until he couldn't find an explanation for this molecular mechanism.

While exploring the world through the lens of natural science two men have thought about many of the same things and came to different conclusions. Nothing is wrong with the lens, science is a way of exploration of natural phenomenon. It doesn't dictate the conclusions of the observer. No need to feign moral indignation or get carried away with highly emotive dramatic theator.

What intelligent design propenants conclude is matter of fact or opinion the vast majority of the time.

yep. we know that a watch need a designer. its a fact and not a belief. even if we are talking about a self replicating watch with dna. so the burden of proof is in the evolutionery side and not ihn the id one. even Paley talked about a self replicating watch and not a regular one.

 

[xianghua]

I am no expert on cellular biology. But I can tell you that molecular biologists overwhelmingly say that the flagellum evolved.

so the whole claim that a spinning motor can evolve naturally is base upon a scientific consensus belief. but are you aware about the fact that a scientific consensus isnt a scientific argument?.

After all, bacteria with the flagellum are quite similar to some bacteria without it. And when two phenotypes are very close, generally that means the DNA is very close.

no. a tipical flagellum have about 30-40 proteins. a small protein is coded by about 300 nt. so this give us about 10000 nt changes (in a specific way) to begin with. its a lot.

Questions for you:

1. Do you agree that where the phenotype of two living things is close, generally the DNA is close?
2. Do you agree that the main way that DNA changes is through evolution?
3. If you do not think God did it through evolution, how do you think he did it? Do you support the KABOOM hypothesis, where God made the matter that forms these cells suddenly out of nothing, and he kept on doing that for millions of years for different creatures?​

see above. they arent so close. and your entire argument is base about non-scientific argument (argument from consensus ).

bottom line- we know that a spinning motor need a designer. therefore the burden of proof is not on the id side.

 

[pshun2404]

Ah, so we finally have an answer to my question. Here it is again:

And do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that for millions of years bacteria, and zebras, and bats, and lobsters and kangaroos just kept popping up out of nowhere as God made them?
​

Bats did exactly that? Suddenly out of nothing a bat appeared out of mid air? Uh no, a bat may startle you, and that may seem to be what happens, but believe me, that is not how it works.

So please, please show me evidence that once, when there were no bats, KABOOM, suddenly a bat started existing out of nothing.

Well what is interesting is I do not support the "kaboom" theory OR the "ancestor of the gaps" theory. I am just saying separate the data we actually have from the narrative attached. Teach the real data as it is (without the speculation), and also teach the narrative but as something we "believe" not as something we know.

"please show me evidence that once, when there were no bats, KABOOM, suddenly a bat started existing out of nothing."

The only evidence we actually have is the fossil record (use to be the harped on evidence that allegedly demonstrated a UCA) but the actual evidence is that there were none, or pre-s, or semi-s, and then there they are fully formed.

This does not make a claim it is the actual observable FACT. That's all!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Pshuh2404,

Let's make a list of all the possible methods by which the first bat came into existence that you and I have proposed here.

1. It evolved.

...and that is the end of the list.

OK, now let's review all the methods on the list, and choose the one with the most evidence.

Hmmm. Evolution... or evolution... or evolution. Hmmm. I guess I will choose evolution.

You have yet to put an idea on the table. Put an idea on the table, and we will compare the ideas. But as long as you refuse to put an idea on the table, how can you declare victory?

To win a match, don't you first need to come out of your corner?

Well what is interesting is I do not support the "kaboom" theory OR the "ancestor of the gaps" theory.

Right, you don't seem to support any hypothesis at all. How did the first bat come into existance? You have nothing to present, not even the proposal that--KABOOM--it suddenly appeared out of nothing. How did God do it? How do you know it was not be evolution?

I am just saying separate the data we actually have from the narrative attached. Teach the real data as it is (without the speculation), and also teach the narrative but as something we "believe" not as something we know.

Yes. Teach the data.

If evolution did not occur, why is the fossil record filled with transitionals?

"please show me evidence that once, when there were no bats, KABOOM, suddenly a bat started existing out of nothing."

The only evidence we actually have is the fossil record (use to be the harped on evidence that allegedly demonstrated a UCA)

Nope we have multiple evidence for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

but the actual evidence is that there were none, or pre-s, or semi-s, and then there they are fully formed.

Uh we don't have much of anything in early bat fossils, since they have delicate skeletons that do not fossilize well. But we do have at least one transtional, the Icaronycteris. Bat - Wikipedia .

This does not make a claim it is the actual observable FACT. That's all!

Do you care to actually make a claim? How did the first bat come into existdnce? Or have you no opinion on that question? (I am not asking who you think did it. I am asking how the bat came into existence if not by evolution, and not by KABOOM.)

 

[doubtingmerle]

yep. we know that a watch need a designer. its a fact and not a belief. even if we are talking about a self replicating watch with dna. so the burden of proof is in the evolutionery side and not ihn the id one. even Paley talked about a self replicating watch and not a regular one.

A watch needed a designer.
A snowflake did not.
A car needed a designer.
The finch variations did not.​

Some things don't need a designer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so the whole claim that a spinning motor can evolve naturally is base upon a scientific consensus belief. but are you aware about the fact that a scientific consensus isnt a scientific argument?.

Are you aware of the fact that the scientific consensus on evolution is based on scientific arguments?

bottom line- we know that a spinning motor need a designer. therefore the burden of proof is not on the id side.

Bottom line-we know that the finch varieties on the Galapagos did not need a designer. Therefore the burden of proof is on your side.

 

[doubtingmerle]

wrong actually. they found that some parts of the flagellum are shared with the ttss system. that it! its like saying that if car and airplane shared some parts like wheels, fuel tank and so on- therefore they can evolve from each other.

No, it is like saying that since all dog breeds have DNA very similar to the gray wolf, then the dog breeds likely came from the gray wolf.

 

[xianghua]

No, it is like saying that since all dog breeds have DNA very similar to the gray wolf, then the dog breeds likely came from the gray wolf.

wrong. again: there is a big different in the DNA level from non flagellum into a flagellum. but there is only a small different from a wolf into a dog.

Are you aware of the fact that the scientific consensus on evolution is based on scientific arguments?

not in all cases. evolution for instance isnt base on scientific evidence.

Bottom line-we know that the finch varieties on the Galapagos did not need a designer. Therefore the burden of proof is on your side.

those finches are still finches. so its not evolution. only variations.

 

[Astrophile]

No, it is like saying that since all dog breeds have DNA very similar to the gray wolf, then the dog breeds likely came from the gray wolf.

Or perhaps it's like saying that since all humans have DNA very similar to chimpanzees, then humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

wrong. again: there is a big different in the DNA level from non flagellum into a flagellum. but there is only a small different from a wolf into a dog.

Excuse me, but your comparison was with a flagellum and an electric motor. My comparison was between dog DNA and flagellum DNA. My comparison is much closer than yours. And yet you nitpick at the details of my analogy, while ignoring that your analogy is not even in the same ballpark!

I have evidence that DNA changes through evolution. You have not even presented an alternate view for how we got the DNA to make the flagellum, and certainly have not attempted to show any evidence that DNA is made by the method you propose.

evolution for instance isnt base on scientific evidence.

That is odd. For scientists say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. How do you know they are wrong?

those finches are still finches. so its not evolution. only variations.

Why do you evade the question? I didn't come to argue semantics, but to discuss a point. Once again:

Bottom line-we know that the finch varieties on the Galapagos did not need a designer.
​

Do you or do you not agree that some basic finches flew to the Galapagos, and there they evolved into all the varieties we see there? Do you or do you not agree that no designer was specifically needed in creating the variations that developed after the ancestor population flew there?