Are there transitional fossils?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... And thus we have thousands of types of birds. Congratulations! And so with fish, and so with reptiles, and so with apes...no evidence of cross overs (one into the other). That part is speculation based on acceptance that the historical narrative attached is true void of actual evidence it is.

Evolution doesn't involve 'cross-overs' of one type into another, just sequential modifications into new species. After a lot of changes, the distant descendant species may look very different from the ancestor species.

 

[doubtingmerle]

where? this is what you said:

"Since the change in DNA to form flagellum is similar to the DNA change to form finch variations"

but they are not. so its not the same case.

I didn't say finch evolution and bacteria evolution were the same case. I said they are similar. Care to address my actual argument?

Your comparison between electric motors and bacteria is not even similar. Electric motors are made in factories by skilled people. The manufacture of motors is very different from the way bacteria are made. And yet for some odd reason, you insist changes in bacteria DNA had to happen just like motors are manufactured.

Well, actually not just like motors, else you would be claiming new bacteria are made in factories. Instead you make an analogy between motors and bacteria, and think that since you make this analogy, you can take any fact about motors and claim this has to be true about bacteria. But you get to pick and choose which facts about motors apply. I can't see how you think this obscure technique of logic has anything to do with reality.

look above. its not even close. there is a huge different between variation and a new complex system that need several parts to its minimal function.

Uh, at the molecular level, the finches need quite a few changes to work as a new species also.

The fact is that you agree that finches made great changes in 2 million years. If finches can evolve all those changes in 2 million years, what is to prevent bacteria from making significant changes in a thousand million years?

this movie show what happen to a scientist that doesnt believe in evolution. they are also understand the evidence and they dont believe in evolution.

Why do you keep evading questions? Do you think I will stop asking?

I said nothing about which scientists were mistreated. That has nothing to do with what I said, which you totally avoided. Once more,

promoting a view in science is based on convincing those who understand the evidence. Do you or do you not agree?
​

Do you or do you not agree that this is the way science should work?

no. only if we are talking about changes in the family level or above that. like a fish to a tetrapod transition and so on.

Wait, so you only deny evolution beyond the family level? You accept a large amount of evolution. So why don't you say that? You accept that a large amount of evolution occurred.

If a large amount of evolution occurred within a family in 10 million years, imagine what would happen in 1000 million years.

you can add to this creation de novo. without evolution.

Ah, so we will now compare two methods by which new animals came into existence:

1) evolution
2) Kaboom, suddenly the new animal appears out of mid air.

We have zero evidence for your view, yes? And yet we know of changes that evolution has produced. Even you agree that evolution makes new species within families. So there is evidence for my view, evolution.

Do you have one piece of evidence that any new species came about by method 2?
​

its actually very easy. all you need is to loss some toes and then you get an hoove.

No, if I lose a few toes and get a hoof, I will not be a horse.

Eohippus had to make major changes to become a horse and zebra. But you are Ok that all that evolution happened, yes? And why is that? Because of all the transitionals in the fossil record, as well as other evidence?

Fine. I think I made my point. There are transitionals down there, and they mean something.

the same conclusion. even the article say that:

"That number was reduced in perissodactyls as they developed modern hooves."

"The mixture of primitive features that since were lost in sister taxons helped lead researchers to place Cambaytherium thewissi beside the perissodactyl clade."

just a degeneration. not evolution.

Wait, a 50 pound animal that looked like Eohippus evolved into a rhinocerous. And this is degeneration? Sounds like progressive evolution to me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Was it KABOOMED? Did it evolve from lower taxa? Did a God create it? Maybe even using an evolutionary process? I do not know and I do not care. It is what it is! Deal with it.
So why did you write that if you do know and do care?

It was not saying I do not care about “evolution” just that I do not care to SPECULATE about HOW they came to be.

Do you care to "speculate" about whether water will still be H20 tomorrow?

Do you care to "speculate" about whether every action had an equal and opposite reaction before Newton discovered the law?

When science has shown conclusively that something happens, then it is not speculation to draw conclusions from that data.

I do not care because my point was that they just suddenly appear in the fossil record (which is a verifiable fact not speculation).

Except for the transitional bat, which I pointed out to you.

And I have explained to you why we have not found more bat transitionals, but you just ignore that, yes?

It was that you speculated on as to a HOW and that is fine so long as we can agree it is hypothesis based speculation and not a fact (since you have no proof)

It is not a hypothesis based speculation that electrons always had a negative charge, or that the sun was always further than the moon in human history, or that the same forces of evolution we have seen evidence of were active in the past per that evidence. We have evidence.

You have not even submitted an alternative hypothesis to evolution, let alone marshal evidence for it.

and as it turns out your alleged transitional is an early bat that I was already well familiar with.

Bats have echolocation, and this creature did not. You ignore that.

Bats have wings made for sustained flight and this creature did not. You ignore that.

you appeared to not understand and added all sorts of assumption about my person or purpose.

Excuse me, but can you list one assumption about your person that I added? Hello? Are you just making this stuff up?

Your presentation of sub-species of finches was applicable and some are definitely transitional regardless of whether some can see it, but they are transitional meaning different types of finches, variations of birds, etc., but not representative of some in-between species like transitioning from reptiles to birds or to mammals etc.

Ok, so you allow that different finches evolved from an ancestral finch group?

In fact, you even seem to acknowledge that all birds could have evolved from each other. Now you set the limit at the gap between birds and reptiles. Suddenly you are opening up to a wide range of evolution.

The sad thing is that in such discussion those who assume the narrative is true (especially those who politically push to legislatively exclude any contrary perspectives or evidence unlike any other field science)

Uh, can you name one branch of science that allows pseudoscience to be taught as science?

We exclude pseudoscience like creation, not because of politics, but because scientists cannot teach that which is against the evidence. I know you don't agree, but scientists have found there is evidence for evolution.

Ah, so you accept speciation. So if a species gets separated, and the two groups become quite different, eventually we get two species, each clearly different? And if the same thing
happens to them, eventually we get another split, ending up with four distinct species? And if hundreds of millions of years are available, and millions of splits occur, then we end up with millions of new species, with those at the end of the chain quite different from the ancestor? And this is your claim? Fine, because that is also my claim.

Exactly! And thus we have thousands of types of birds. Congratulations! And so with fish, and so with reptiles, and so with apes...no evidence of cross overs (one into the other). That part is speculation based on acceptance that the historical narrative attached is true void of actual evidence it is.

Wait. All birds evolved from a common bird ancestor? All fish evolved from a common fish ancestor? All reptiles evolved from a common reptile ancestor? Will you allow us to teach all those things as science in schools?

 

[pshun2404]

It is equally likely if you change the "A" common ancestor to a few basic pairs of common ancestors.

"can you name one branch of science that allows pseudoscience to be taught as science?"

I certainly hope there is none that would allow such foolishness and I definitely do not think "creationism" should be taught in science class. Just separate truth from speculation on that truth.

 

[Jimmy D]

Exactly! And thus we have thousands of types of birds. Congratulations! And so with fish, and so with reptiles, and so with apes...no evidence of cross overs (one into the other). That part is speculation based on acceptance that the historical narrative attached is true void of actual evidence it is.

This a strawman Pshun, I don't doubt that you know well enough that we don't expect to see one evolutionary lineage cross to a new one, it's a branching proccess.

And yes, we do have evidence of how such branches split off, what about Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx or Kutchicetus?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I certainly hope there is none that would allow such foolishness and I definitely do not think "creationism" should be taught in science class. Just separate truth from speculation on that truth.

Ok, but it is not speculation that the dog breeds all came from the gray wolf. Should scientists be allowed to teach it?

And it is not speculation that the finches in the Gulapagos all came from a common ancestor. Should scientists be allowed to teach it?

And to many of us, it is not speculation that all birds came from a common bird ancestor that came from a dinosaur ancestor that came from a fish ancestor that came from a bacteria ancestor.

Who gets to determine which change in species are speculation, and which are facts? I think scientists should determine that. And scientists, based on good evidence, have determined that macro evolution should be taught as fact, not as speculation.

 

[pshun2404]

Ok, but it is not speculation that the dog breeds all came from the gray wolf. Should scientists be allowed to teach it?

And it is not speculation that the finches in the Gulapagos all came from a common ancestor. Should scientists be allowed to teach it?

And to many of us, it is not speculation that all birds came from a common bird ancestor that came from a dinosaur ancestor that came from a fish ancestor that came from a bacteria ancestor.

Who gets to determine which change in species are speculation, and which are facts? I think scientists should determine that. And scientists, based on good evidence, have determined that macro evolution should be taught as fact, not as speculation.

Of course all dog varieties came from a few early types like Grey Wolf but not from reptiles! And yes all varieties of birds came from a few types of early avians but not reptiles!

"And to many of us, it is not speculation that all birds came from a common bird ancestor that came from a dinosaur ancestor that came from a fish ancestor that came from a bacteria ancestor."

I know it is conviction without real proof. And yes they do say teach it as truth, you are correct. But again I challenge you to show a single such transformation.

 

[pshun2404]

This a strawman Pshun, I don't doubt that you know well enough that we don't expect to see one evolutionary lineage cross to a new one, it's a branching proccess.

And yes, we do have evidence of how such branches split off, what about Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx or Kutchicetus?

no strawman...reality...observable facts not speculation. Now lets see...If one looks up Tik in Wiki we note some interesting points.

First off this summation indicates it did in fact NOT walk up on land, and also that it lived in water. Secondly, carefully (be honest here for your sake) notice the wording in Wiki…(in the subjunctive mood…not real established fact only “best guess” from the point of view of their greater theoretical position -opinion, conjecture). Without the assumed theory already accepted as if it were a fact (in other words if looked at objectively), it can be INTERPRETED differently to PROBABLY be something other, and thus SURMISED to indicate a different conclusion…

It is said that further that paleontologists surmise that it probably lived in shallow, weed-choked swamps, the legs having evolved for some other purpose than walking on land (legs being assumption #1, and that they “evolved” being assumption #2).

Now if one really looks at the language (surmise? probably? Interpreted as?), nothing found actually indicates they ever did.

Yet Dawkins said, “Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer.”

But in fact he lied! It does not fall in between fish and land walking tetrapods at all because both already existed. But what does reality have to do with it?

Now it MAY turn out at some future time we see this transformation but not yet. I am sure that fish like Tik already existed as well. And we still have many similar "walking fish" even now.

 

[pshun2404]

See National Geographic for proof of way older than Tik Tetrapod landwalkers

Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution

Since they already existed Tik was not in between at all. Dawkins was wrong (as he is with so many things) Tik split nothing and does not represent a Transition from fish to Tetras at all.

 

[pshun2404]

Kutchicetus

Sometime take a look at what we actually found and then look at what they show us. Then if you believe the unreality is the reality, then I feel sorry for you.

My oh my, certainly even one as convinced as you can see all the assumption that went into these hypothesis based artistically contrived reconstructions. I am sorry to have to break it to you in case you have not been informed, but these reconstructions are largely FICTIONAL (specifically science fiction).

Nothing from what we actually found (even IF they all belonged to the same creature) is demonstrative of this being an early transitional to whales. It is sad that so many really smart people like yourself fall for these shinanigans. Altered engineered images are a powerful propaganda tool used for imprinting (as they say one picture is worth 1000 words).

Really get a picture of the actual fossils unearthed. What they show you and teach from are false. The Truth?

We have a few teeth and a handful of head fragments (the rest of the head is all pretend, made up) no real way to at all to determine the chest cavity, or even if it had lungs (though that may be true)...no real legs/feet or arm/hand bones (a few frags added to in modelling contrived to make the hypothesis appear real)...no way to guarantee it was even mammalian.

Seriously Jim, remain an atheist if you want but you have to stop falling for this crap!

And then they accept the non-reality as if it is reality, and live in the acceptance of the non-reality as reality itself.

Do you know the correct psychiatric term for when someone accepts unreality as if it is reality, and lives therein? Come on say the word...you know it...

 

[Jimmy D]

no strawman...reality...observable facts not speculation. Now lets see...If one looks up Tik in Wiki we note some interesting points.

First off this summation indicates it did in fact NOT walk up on land, and also that it lived in water. Secondly, carefully (be honest here for your sake) notice the wording in Wiki…(in the subjunctive mood…not real established fact only “best guess” from the point of view of their greater theoretical position -opinion, conjecture). Without the assumed theory already accepted as if it were a fact (in other words if looked at objectively), it can be INTERPRETED differently to PROBABLY be something other, and thus SURMISED to indicate a different conclusion…

It is said that further that paleontologists surmise that it probably lived in shallow, weed-choked swamps, the legs having evolved for some other purpose than walking on land (legs being assumption #1, and that they “evolved” being assumption #2).

Did anyone say anything else? Isn't that what any rational person would would expect?

Now if one really looks at the language (surmise? probably? Interpreted as?), nothing found actually indicates they ever did.

Please, now your complaining about the tentative language used in a wiki article? It's called intellectual honesty.

Yet Dawkins said, “Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer.”

But in fact he lied! It does not fall in between fish and land walking tetrapods at all because both already existed. But what does reality have to do with it?

A) I don't care what Dawkins claims.
B) Have you forgotten the pages of this thread where the definition of transitional was explained. It just needs to be represenative of the split and exhibit features of the early and later branch.

If you don't feel Tik qualifies that's up to you, paleontologists disagree.

I personally find it compelling that a creature showing a mixture of tetrapod and fish like features was predicted to have developed around that time and was duly discovered. Another test successfully passed by the TOE!

Now it MAY turn out at some future time we see this transformation but not yet. I am sure that fish like Tik already existed as well. And we still have many similar "walking fish" even now.

What would you expect to in "this transformation" exactly? A newt with fins? a fish with frog's legs? Obviously I'm being facetious , I think most people would expect to see something like Tik.

 

[Jimmy D]

See National Geographic for proof of way older than Tik Tetrapod landwalkers

Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution

Since they already existed Tik was not in between at all. Dawkins was wrong (as he is with so many things) Tik split nothing and does not represent a Transition from fish to Tetras at all.

No doubt, but Tik's the only one we've found.... whether it was on a different evolutionary branch or not it is still representative of the development. We've been through all this though, if you don't accept the definition of transitional that paleontolgists use that's up to you.

I thought that you didn't entirely dismiss the theory evolution anyway, why are you trying so hard to nitpick this example? We knew the date of the earliest examples of tetrapods in the fossil record, we knew the distribution of fossils of fish with similar bone structures to the tetrapods and used that information to predict and locate a creature with features of both, what's the problem? Have you got an alternative explanation for tik's place in the fossil record or tree of life?

 

[Jimmy D]

Kutchicetus

Sometime take a look at what we actually found and then look at what they show us. Then if you believe the unreality is the reality, then I feel sorry for you.

My oh my, certainly even one as convinced as you can see all the assumption that went into these hypothesis based artistically contrived reconstructions. I am sorry to have to break it to you in case you have not been informed, but these reconstructions are largely FICTIONAL (specifically science fiction).

Nothing from what we actually found (even IF they all belonged to the same creature) is demonstrative of this being an early transitional to whales. It is sad that so many really smart people like yourself fall for these shinanigans. Altered engineered images are a powerful propaganda tool used for imprinting (as they say one picture is worth 1000 words).

Really get a picture of the actual fossils unearthed. What they show you and teach from are false. The Truth?

We have a few teeth and a handful of head fragments (the rest of the head is all pretend, made up) no real way to at all to determine the chest cavity, or even if it had lungs (though that may be true)...no real legs/feet or arm/hand bones (a few frags added to in modelling contrived to make the hypothesis appear real)...no way to guarantee it was even mammalian.

Not convinced by the reconstructions eh? OK, I'll accept the consensus of those with the knowlege and experience to do so. It matters little in the grand scheme of things.

Seriously Jim, remain an atheist if you want but you have to stop falling for this crap!

And then they accept the non-reality as if it is reality, and live in the acceptance of the non-reality as reality itself.

Do you know the correct psychiatric term for when someone accepts unreality as if it is reality, and lives therein? Come on say the word...you know it...

Becareful mate, you're starting to show your true feelings! My atheism has nothing to do with science, it's becoming clear that you're letting your religious beliefs cloud your judgement of all the lines of evidence for the TOE though. I can appreciate that any specific example can be nit-picked to death - but viewed as a whole the fossil record, genetic evidence, nested hierachies, biogeography, observed speciation etc etc add up to one thing..... the Theory of Evolution.

If you've got a better explanation it's going to have to be pretty good to pass every test in all those areas of study, but you haven't have you? You just really really really don't want to accept the TOE for "some" reason.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of course all dog varieties came from a few early types like Grey Wolf but not from reptiles!
ion. And yes all varieties of birds came from a few types of early avians but not reptiles!

I see you copied my question but completely ignored it. No problem, I will ask again:

Who gets to determine which change in species are speculation, and which are facts? I think scientists should determine that. And scientists, based on good evidence, have determined that macro evolution should be taught as fact, not as speculation.​

And your evasive answer appear to say that you get to determine which is science and which is not.

But why should it be you? Why do you get to decide that my science books may say that the finches evolved from a common bird ancestor, but not that they evolved from a reptile? There are thousands of different people with differing views on creation. Why is it that you get to decide what is science? I would tend to trust scientist more than you with that decision.

Science is a complex study with many people doing independent research. To get published, the research must first be reviewed by peers. And then it goes through repeated evaluations and research with other scientists, bubbling up to a consensus opinion only after extensive review. But you seem to bypass that whole progress, and you declare that you get to decide which evolution events should be taught as science.

Again, why you? Why not let scientists decide what is science?

"And to many of us, it is not speculation that all birds came from a common bird ancestor that came from a dinosaur ancestor that came from a fish ancestor that came from a bacteria ancestor."

I know it is conviction without real proof. And yes they do say teach it as truth, you are correct.

Science does not deal with formal proof. It deals with evidence. I have linked to a file with the evidence many times on this thread.

But again I challenge you to show a single such transformation.

From reptile to bird? Got 200 million years to wait for the experiment? If you can build me a few primitive worlds with early reptiles and no birds, and if we let those worlds go untouched for a few hundred million years, there is a real possibility that one of those worlds will develop something like birds, and that would show that such evolution can occur. But I don't have the time to wait for that experiment.

In the meantime we have evidence--Archy, for instance.

 

[pshun2404]

Did anyone say anything else? Isn't that what any rational person would would expect?

Please, now your complaining about the tentative language used in a wiki article? It's called intellectual honesty.

A) I don't care what Dawkins claims.
B) Have you forgotten the pages of this thread where the definition of transitional was explained. It just needs to be represenative of the split and exhibit features of the early and later branch.

If you don't feel Tik qualifies that's up to you, paleontologists disagree.

I personally find it compelling that a creature showing a mixture of tetrapod and fish like features was predicted to have developed around that time and was duly discovered. Another test successfully passed by the TOE!

What would you expect to in "this transformation" exactly? A newt with fins? a fish with frog's legs? Obviously I'm being facetious , I think most people would expect to see something like Tik.

"Did anyone say anything else? Isn't that what any rational person would would expect?"

No! Not if we let the evidence speak for itself void of the story we were all convinced of, no!

"Please, now your complaining about the tentative language used in a wiki article? It's called intellectual honesty."

Again wrong Jim! I am not complaining at all. We see the same subjunctive mood in the words of the original researchers...and yes that's the point, that IS what is called intellectual honesty. They are not saying it is an established fact or trying to persuade us that is what actually happened they are offering what to them is a reasonable possibility. And THAT is all it is...could be's and might be's do not equal IS.

"Have you forgotten the pages of this thread where the definition of transitional was explained. It just needs to be represenative of the split and exhibit features of the early and later branch."

Yes because the real meaning has been proven to not apply (their assumption being incorrect) they poured new meaning into a commonly accepted term so as to make the evidence fit the theory (oopps!!! Hypothetical possibility assumed to be the case).

So now as a matter of convenience (but not accurately true) "transitional" no longer means between a former state or stage and latter state or stage. How convenient (they did the same thing to other terms when the evidence did not fit or indicated they might be incorrect)

"If you don't feel Tik qualifies that's up to you, paleontologists disagree."

According to the real meaning of the term (which was implied when first applied) the newest evidence would have the great great grandson (Tik) as coming BEFORE the great great granddad.According to the real meaning of the term (that everyone instantly re-cognizes) Tik is not "transitional" or a go between (missing link) that splits or demonstrates fish becoming amphibians.

So here is the scenario "If I cannot make my fiction seem correct I will just change the meaning of words so when I say one thing I will mean another and then use that to claim it is they who are ignorant of the truth." You do realize (I hope) that this is another common propaganda technique (which is used all the time in politically charged issues). Now throw in a few doctored artistically contrived images and viola!!!! Our made up pretend model proves we were right and now with a mew meaning we appear to be correct after all...

"I personally find it compelling that a creature showing a mixture of tetrapod and fish like features was predicted to have developed around that time and was duly discovered. Another test successfully passed by the TOE!"

It's a fish Jim, just a variety of fish, nothing more. A variety we have modern examples of as well as other ancient examples. It was a partial, flattened, jumble of pieces made into a mythological creature by creative contrivance. Of course paleantologists believe that the contrivance fits the hypothesis based story...they are the ones (already pre-convinced) that invented it!

 

[pshun2404]

Not convinced by the reconstructions eh? OK, I'll accept the consensus of those with the knowlege and experience to do so. It matters little in the grand scheme of things.

Becareful mate, you're starting to show your true feelings! My atheism has nothing to do with science, it's becoming clear that you're letting your religious beliefs cloud your judgement of all the lines of evidence for the TOE though. I can appreciate that any specific example can be nit-picked to death - but viewed as a whole the fossil record, genetic evidence, nested hierachies, biogeography, observed speciation etc etc add up to one thing..... the Theory of Evolution.

If you've got a better explanation it's going to have to be pretty good to pass every test in all those areas of study, but you haven't have you? You just really really really don't want to accept the TOE for "some" reason.

"Not convinced by the reconstructions eh? OK, I'll accept the consensus of those with the knowlege and experience to do so. It matters little in the grand scheme of things."

If YOU want to accept unreality as reality and live your life based on that, that's fine with me (but I would hope better for you and that is why I bother to reason these things out).

Consider Ambulocetus displayed here (I mean REALLY LOOK)...note all we really have is in black....what the did to it to make it appear an understandable creature that fits the "belief" is all the white areas (over 90% fiction)...they made it up Jim! They made it up!

Accept what you want but don't think me ignorant of the reality. There is the reality and the unreality...I will NOT accept the unreality as reality because I am not...YOU KNOW...come on what is the term?

"My atheism has nothing to do with science, it's becoming clear that you're letting your religious beliefs cloud your judgement of all the lines of evidence"

Again with the unnecessary mis-characterization. I KNOW that your atheism or my theism actually has ZERO to do with what we are discussing. Just re-read what I just said above...it is about "the actual data" and NOT a story used to explain it to fit some preconceived "belief".

 

[xianghua]

Your comparison between electric motors and bacteria is not even similar. Electric motors are made in factories by skilled people. The manufacture of motors is very different from the way bacteria are made. And yet for some odd reason, you insist changes in bacteria DNA had to happen just like motors are manufactured. .

i only said that any spinning motor is evidence for design. as far as we know. you want to believe otherwise? ok. but you will need a good evidence for this belief.

The fact is that you agree that finches made great changes in 2 million years. If finches can evolve all those changes in 2 million years, what is to prevent bacteria from making significant changes in a thousand million years?

complex systems like flagellum, that need several parts to be functional. you cant compare it with mutations that make a new species of finch. if you wnat to move from one kind to another, you cant do it stepwise. so evolution cant make this transition.

promoting a view in science is based on convincing those who understand the evidence. Do you or do you not agree?Do you or do you not agree that this is the way science should work?
​

agree.

Wait, so you only deny evolution beyond the family level? You accept a large amount of evolution. So why don't you say that? You accept that a large amount of evolution occurred.

not at all. any variations in the creature cant consider as evolution. because its basically the same creature (like wolf vs dog).

Ah, so we will now compare two methods by which new animals came into existence:

1) evolution
2) Kaboom, suddenly the new animal appears out of mid air.

We have zero evidence for your view, yes? And yet we know of changes that evolution has produced. Even you agree that evolution makes new species within families. So there is evidence for my view, evolution.

actually its zero evidence for evolution. you can only believe that a fish can evolve into a tetrapod. you cant prove it. but its a fact that a spinning motor nened a designer. so we have a belief vs a fact. and you also believe in a natural evolution. so it make it even worse.

Do you have one piece of evidence that any new species came about by method 2?

yes. 1) we know that a motor need a d esigner and 2) we know that it cant evolve stepwise. so the only logical conclusion is that this motor created at once.
​

Eohippus had to make major changes to become a horse and zebra.

as?

Wait, a 50 pound animal that looked like Eohippus evolved into a rhinocerous. And this is degeneration? Sounds like progressive evolution to me.

first: its not a rhino (it doesnt have even horn). secondly: even your own example isnt a missing link:

New fossils are no "missing link"

"So, why then, if cambaytheres are so closely related to rhinos and horses, can't we call them a "missing link?" Because of their position on the Tree of Life. As shown below, if cambaytheres were a "missing link," it would imply that they are part of the ancestral lineage of either horses or rhinos and "link" these two animals to one another. Neither are cambaytheres the common ancestor of horses and rhinos. In fact, cambaytheres are not part of the ancestral lineage of rhinos or horses at all; they are simply close relatives of those ancestors"

 

[pshun2404]

I see you copied my question but completely ignored it. No problem, I will ask again:

Who gets to determine which change in species are speculation, and which are facts? I think scientists should determine that. And scientists, based on good evidence, have determined that macro evolution should be taught as fact, not as speculation.​

And your evasive answer appear to say that you get to determine which is science and which is not.

But why should it be you? Why do you get to decide that my science books may say that the finches evolved from a common bird ancestor, but not that they evolved from a reptile? There are thousands of different people with differing views on creation. Why is it that you get to decide what is science? I would tend to trust scientist more than you with that decision.

Science is a complex study with many people doing independent research. To get published, the research must first be reviewed by peers. And then it goes through repeated evaluations and research with other scientists, bubbling up to a consensus opinion only after extensive review. But you seem to bypass that whole progress, and you declare that you get to decide which evolution events should be taught as science.

Again, why you? Why not let scientists decide what is science?

Science does not deal with formal proof. It deals with evidence. I have linked to a file with the evidence many times on this thread.

From reptile to bird? Got 200 million years to wait for the experiment? If you can build me a few primitive worlds with early reptiles and no birds, and if we let those worlds go untouched for a few hundred million years, there is a real possibility that one of those worlds will develop something like birds, and that would show that such evolution can occur. But I don't have the time to wait for that experiment.

In the meantime we have evidence--Archy, for instance.

Okay a lot here so let's start with the question I thought was rhetorical since I know you are convinced (I known how that is, because I was there and have a whole bunch of T-shirts).

"Who gets to determine which change in species are speculation, and which are facts? I think scientists should determine that. And scientists, based on good evidence, have determined that macro evolution should be taught as fact, not as speculation."

My answer is, "fine I will concede to this if you can provide me examples of it actually happening". Speciation is real, and a powerful natural process. The specualtion I refer to is when the historical narrative is applied to make the facts say something they do not say on their own.

I say this because everywhere I have looked in the natural world, and all the articles I ever read (if I minus the historical narrative, even in the articles you geve), and all the lab studies currently being done, ONLY show speciation causing variety within the same kind of organism (and I already gave three or four examples that demonstrate my point, so now give me some that demonstrate your point...). I evaded NOTHING.

You are way off on this one...you ask who should get to decide? "But why should it be you? Why do you get to decide that my science books may say that the finches evolved from a common bird ancestor, but not that they evolved from a reptile?"

I do not care who puts the information in, just separate the fact from the "possibilities" (which are in truth possible, but not based on observed facts). They should state this because it is what the evidence states. Give the facts, and offer the narrative as a possibility that we "believe".

Why should OUR science textbooks say Finches evolved from earlier avians and not reptiles? Because there are early avians millions of years ago...now there are 1000s of varieties over 100s of millions of years. Period! That is what we know.

In addition since the earliest avians precede Archae, maybe Archae came from them and not the other way around (NOT cart before horse)? Perhaps, a POSSIBLE explanation if we look at what we actually have, and not the story told so far) that Avains became Archae's ( since he comes later)...

Now I am not making that claim but since A comes before B then C, then C cannot be the cause of A OR inbetween A and B....or the cause of B and this does not necessitate that A or B became C. TO conclude that this is anything more than a commonly held "belief" is an assumption.

 

[xianghua]

I personally find it compelling that a creature showing a mixture of tetrapod and fish like features was predicted to have developed around that time and was duly discovered. Another test successfully passed by the TOE!

does evolution also predicted this one?:


| Biology Letters


""Any acrodontan—let alone an advanced agamid—in the Triassic is thus highly unexpected in the light of recent studies."


"It is extremely unlikely that Tikiguania is an advanced agamid from the Triassic, and that the draconine jaw ‘morphotype’ has persisted largely unchanged for 216 Myr."

"Tikiguania estesi is widely accepted to be the earliest member of Squamata, the reptile group that includes lizards and snakes. It is based on a lower jaw from the Late Triassic of India"


"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade"

 

[Jimmy D]

"Did anyone say anything else? Isn't that what any rational person would would expect?"

No! Not if we let the evidence speak for itself void of the story we were all convinced of, no!

But I didn't say it walked on land (although it may have done for all I know) I don't know what your argument is here.

"Please, now your complaining about the tentative language used in a wiki article? It's called intellectual honesty."

Again wrong Jim! I am not complaining at all. We see the same subjunctive mood in the words of the original researchers...and yes that's the point, that IS what is called intellectual honesty. They are not saying it is an established fact or trying to persuade us that is what actually happened they are offering what to them is a reasonable possibility. And THAT is all it is...could be's and might be's do not equal IS.

Glad to hear it.

You put such a negative spin on it though, seems a bit unnecessary.

"Have you forgotten the pages of this thread where the definition of transitional was explained. It just needs to be represenative of the split and exhibit features of the early and later branch."

Yes because the real meaning has been proven to not apply (their assumption being incorrect) they poured new meaning into a commonly accepted term so as to make the evidence fit the theory (oopps!!! Hypothetical possibility assumed to be the case).

So now as a matter of convenience (but not accurately true) "transitional" no longer means between a former state or stage and latter state or stage. How convenient (they did the same thing to other terms when the evidence did not fit or indicated they might be incorrect)

"Real meaning"? Is that the one used frequently in scientific discourse or the one you prefer? It sounds like you believe transitional = missing link, and maybe it does to you and your creationist cousins over at AIG or whatever, but that's not how scientists define it.

"If you don't feel Tik qualifies that's up to you, paleontologists disagree."

According to the real meaning of the term (which was implied when first applied) the newest evidence would have the great great grandson (Tik) as coming BEFORE the great great granddad.According to the real meaning of the term (that everyone instantly re-cognizes) Tik is not "transitional" or a go between (missing link) that splits or demonstrates fish becoming amphibians.

There you go again, Tik is not the"missing link", it is representative of the split.

So here is the scenario "If I cannot make my fiction seem correct I will just change the meaning of words so when I say one thing I will mean another and then use that to claim it is they who are ignorant of the truth."

Oh the irony! I feel feint!

You are attempting to redefine "transitional" to the point it where it would be an impossible standard to meet.

"I personally find it compelling that a creature showing a mixture of tetrapod and fish like features was predicted to have developed around that time and was duly discovered. Another test successfully passed by the TOE!"

It's a fish Jim, just a variety of fish, nothing more. A variety we have modern examples of as well as other ancient examples. It was a partial, flattened, jumble of pieces made into a mythological creature by creative contrivance. Of course paleantologists believe that the contrivance fits the hypothesis based story...they are the ones (already pre-convinced) that invented it!

Right, right, just a fish. A fish with wrists.

Anyway, I'm clocking off until Monday.... have a good weekend!