Are there transitional fossils?

pshun2404 · Jun 18, 2017

Let’s see if I get this correct,

So they take a mostly impression fossil of some small creature in Wyoming (a place where as far as we can tell horses never existed before very recent times), and change the feet to look similar to hooves, add a distinct tail, make a model and assemble it just so, stand it up and put in positions that MAY BE similar to how a horse would stand...and now insist people believe that something similar to could have...and viola’...an alleged scientific fact.

That’s not how good science works...that’s how some scientists work!

USincognito · Jun 18, 2017

pshun2404 said:
"If you can believe" (imagine) "something very close to" (that we can imagine) "could have" (but maybe not) "thus we find" (the hypothesis based assumptive conclusion)...finally some honesty.

This is it...this is the substance (fiction)

FYI - This semantic and rhetorical dishonesty is the same as posting "fixed it for you" which is against forum rules.

doubtingmerle · Jun 18, 2017

pshun2404 said:
And as for your stock way around changing the meaning of terms...IMO there is o excuse. Transitional means transitional and there are no examples,

Back to arguing semantics, are you?

There is nothing deceptive about the way scientists use the word "transitional". They are very clear what they mean.

But rather than argue about the term, in a fruitless discussion of semantics, can you and I agree to use the term CSRTA to refer to cousin species representative of the true ancestor? At least then we have a word that we can use to talk to each other.

yet it is believed (at least it certainly was by me) and vehemently defended (which I also did for decades) that what transitional forms are used to imply is far more than variety demonstrated by speciation.

CSRTAs (scientists call them transitionals) are not used to demonstrate speciation. Rather they are used to show the probable paths of evolution.

pshun2404 · Jun 18, 2017

Can we agree to use "the term CSRTA to refer to cousin species representative of the true ancestor?"

Definitely not since

a) CSRTA has a meaning unto itself, and
b) your anagram assumes the questionable assertion...

Instead show me an actual transformation/transmutation outside of variation...OR simple admit you cannot, and then we can move on to other factors that may or may not be involved.

pshun2404 · Jun 18, 2017

Stop and view this

pshun2404 · Jun 18, 2017

For Jim D for archaeopteryx

Go on you tube and access

Is the evolution theory true or false.? (15)

Subduction Zone · Jun 18, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Stop and view this

Sorry, I don't tend to take dishonest videos or sites very seriously. You do realize that they keep finding more and more fossils that keep fleshing out horse evolution. Your video is based upon old information. And yet even then the pathway to the modern horse was fairly clear to honest people. Today there is no doubt. In this article over thirty species are mentioned, and as they say:

" In 1940, this diagram would have showed only 15 genera, representing only 200 species. But we just keep finding horse fossils. There are entire books about them."

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

And this article itself is 20 years old. Do you think that they have not found even more since then?

You keep ignoring the fact that there are literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution and none that supports creationism

Jimmy D · Jun 19, 2017

pshun2404 said:
For Jim D for archaeopteryx

Go on you tube and access

Is the evolution theory true or false.? (15)

No thanks, if you would like to say something about archaeopteryx please go ahead though.

doubtingmerle · Jun 19, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Instead show me an actual transformation/transmutation outside of variation...OR simple admit you cannot, and then we can move on to other factors that may or may not be involved.

What would you accept as a transitional between fish and amphibian? I have asked before and you refused to answer. Instead you sit back with every transitional we show you and say it is not good enough for you. What would be good enough for you? What would it be, that if we found that, you would say that qualifies as transitional?

Tik has features between fish and tetrapods, and appears in the fossil record at a place where we would see cousins of the actual transitional ancestors. Why does that not qualify as a transitional?

doubtingmerle · Jun 19, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Stop and view this

I don't waste time on movies. I did however watch half of this. It is pure garbage.

First, it claims there is a modern horse fossil as old as Eohippus. This is completely false. If you think it is true, document it. A youtube claim does not count as documentation.

Second, it resorts to the old tactic of out of context quotes. I don't think a single one of the people quoted agree that the modern horse did not evolve from Eohippus or a close cousin of Eohippus. Instead, these people are saying either:

1) Evolution branched in many paths, sometimes bigger fossils, sometimes smaller, sometimes more or less toes, rather than a straight line, but eventually got to Equus.
2) Evolution went at various rates, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but eventually got to Equus.

However, your video takes these objections to a straight line path, and makes them sound like the people disagree with horse evolution. That is outright deceptive. If you think this video is not deceiving people, look up what the people it quotes actually believe.

I stopped after I saw that. Any youtube video that resorts to distorted facts is not worth my time (or yours).

I didn't watch the end, but you tell me: Did it conclude how we got all those fossils down there over a stretch of millions of years? When and how does it say the first zebra, modern horse, and donkey came into existence? Or did it just misquote people without making a claim of its own?

xianghua · Jun 19, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
We absolutely do not know for sure that all powered spinning device such as a flagellum needs a designer. If you think it is true, make an attempt to argue for it.

ok. so you are saying that this kind of motor doesnt need a designer because it made from organic components and can replicate itself? so if we will find a watch or a robot or a car that have all those traits, your conclusion will be the same- they can evolve naturally. but do you agree that the burden of proof is your side in this case?

doubtingmerle said:
Again, millions of years ago, bacteria would have been different. There is nothing that would have prevented some bacteria back then from having proteins close to flagellum protein.

you see again your assumption? the evidence we have show us that those proteins exist in many species of bacteria and not just one. so we can just mix them.

doubtingmerle said:
What are the odds that the trillions upon trillions of proteins needed to form the bacteria from scratch just happened to combine, as per your kaboom hypothesis?

very high because we are talking about designer that can target and moving those parts by design. and again: zero evidence to your "motor evolved naturally hypothesis"

doubtingmerle said:
Then write a peer reviewed article that proves them wrong.

like those ones?:

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

doubtingmerle said:
Please. To get from a wolf to a poodle you need mutations and selection. That is evolution.

its only a variation. again: according to this any change is evolution. but evolution is also about common descent with other creatures. dont forget it.

doubtingmerle said:
How do you know for sure a fish cannot evolve into an amhibian, other than the fact that you have said it over and over?

like i know that a car cant evolve into an airplane. with or without a self repliciation trait.

doubtingmerle said:
The point is that, if you can believe Eohipus could have changed into a horse in 50 million years, and believe something very close to Eohippus could have evolved into a rhino in 50 million years, then why cannot those two ancestors have a common ancestor, and thus we would find that the horse is related to the rhino?

again: because of complex traits that nened several parts together. we also know that a car will not evolve into an airplane. so why we should believe that a fish can evolve into human?

pshun2404 · Jun 19, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
Sorry, I don't tend to take dishonest videos or sites very seriously. You do realize that they keep finding more and more fossils that keep fleshing out horse evolution. Your video is based upon old information. And yet even then the pathway to the modern horse was fairly clear to honest people. Today there is no doubt. In this article over thirty species are mentioned, and as they say:

" In 1940, this diagram would have showed only 15 genera, representing only 200 species. But we just keep finding horse fossils. There are entire books about them."

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

And this article itself is 20 years old. Do you think that they have not found even more since then?

You keep ignoring the fact that there are literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution and none that supports creationism

The testimony of the expert (an evolutionist) in the video was from less than or maybe 10 year ago...are you shrinking the box (stacking the deck) again....Eohippus is NOT an ancestor to the horse (it's just construed as such)

pshun2404 · Jun 19, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
What would you accept as a transitional between fish and amphibian? I have asked before and you refused to answer. Instead you sit back with every transitional we show you and say it is not good enough for you. What would be good enough for you? What would it be, that if we found that, you would say that qualifies as transitional?

Tik has features between fish and tetrapods, and appears in the fossil record at a place where we would see cousins of the actual transitional ancestors. Why does that not qualify as a transitional?

Because it is not "in between" as most evolutionists claim and it is a fish not unlike many living species today...if Tik walked up on land it would have suffocated and died.

"What would you accept as a transitional between fish and amphibian? I have asked before and you refused to answer."

Wrong I have answered this, but will try a different angle and maybe you can comprehend this one. A semi-fish amphibian, or a quasi-amphibian fish, would do fine for ME...(now from some, maybe not you, will come the blah, blah, blah to explain why we should not expect to find such things)

pshun2404 · Jun 19, 2017

Xiang...they just are unable to grasp purely logical thought...they require the historical story invented to govern all conclusions. What you said in your last post is totally reasonable and makes perfect sense but as we have found in deprogramming cult victims and rescuing people from Stockholm syndrome, all attempts to make sense or open their mind just kicks them back into the pre-programmed loop. They cannot eve stay on only one subject or point without bringing in all the other aspects programmed in which returns them to the first unresolved point.

Jimmy D · Jun 19, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Xiang...they just are unable to grasp purely logical thought...they require the historical story invented to govern all conclusions. What you said in your last post is totally reasonable and makes perfect sense but as we have found in deprogramming cult victims and rescuing people from Stockholm syndrome, all attempts to make sense or open their mind just kicks them back into the pre-programmed loop. They cannot eve stay on only one subject or point without bringing in all the other aspects programmed in which returns them to the first unresolved point.

You think that....

we also know that a car will not evolve into an airplane. so why we should believe that a fish can evolve into human?

Is logical? Seriously?

Jimmy D · Jun 19, 2017

pshun2404 said:
A semi-fish amphibian, or a quasi-amphibian fish, would do fine for ME...

So I was right?

From an earlier post...

What would you expect to see 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 · Jun 19, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Xiang...they just are unable to grasp purely logical thought...they require the historical story invented to govern all conclusions. What you said in your last post is totally reasonable and makes perfect sense but as we have found in deprogramming cult victims and rescuing people from Stockholm syndrome, all attempts to make sense or open their mind just kicks them back into the pre-programmed loop. They cannot eve stay on only one subject or point without bringing in all the other aspects programmed in which returns them to the first unresolved point.

It's strange how so many people are mistaken about the fossil record isn't it? I mean, to the people who study fossils for a living, the fossils we have discovered appear to fit chronologically into the pattern we might expect to see if evolution were true.

I wonder what your explanation is?

pshun2404 · Jun 19, 2017

Jimmy D said:
So I was right?

From an earlier post...

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.

Okay! So to see a "transitional" between fish and four legged land walkers they would expect to see a fish not dissimilar to many species now...Okay! Got it!

pshun2404 · Jun 19, 2017

Jimmy D said:
It's strange how so many people are mistaken about the fossil record isn't it? I mean, to the people who study fossils for a living, the fossils we have discovered appear to fit chronologically into the pattern we might expect to see if evolution were true.I wonder what your explanation is?

Differentiate what we have from the story told...

Pull out all the imaginary lines where there is nothing real but assumption and there is my explanation. What you see is what you get...pick any tree or man made hierarchy and the same rule applies...once intelligently designed it can be used to persuade but what do we actually have? That is what should shape the hypothesis only here the hypothesis was accepted as true first, and then everything (including the multiple errors and intentional falsehoods) is made to appear to fit. You asked I answered.

Subduction Zone · Jun 19, 2017

pshun2404 said:
The testimony of the expert (an evolutionist) in the video was from less than or maybe 10 year ago...are you shrinking the box (stacking the deck) again....Eohippus is NOT an ancestor to the horse (it's just construed as such)

Your video was dishonest. I don't deal with dishonest videos. Find an article where there is no quoting out of context. You do realize that many creationist sites lie by quote mining, don't you? With an article one can at least usually check the quotes to see if they are in context or not. With videos that is all but impossible.

By the way, I already explained what a transitional fossil is and why ancestry is not important. What part did you not understand?

Are there transitional fossils?

Newbie

a post by Alan Smithee

I'll think about it.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency