Are there transitional fossils?

[AV1611VET]

I've never been jealous of any flagrant display of ignorance.

So you treat a flagrant display of ignorance like you would an M.R.I.A.?

 

[HitchSlap]

So you treat a flagrant display of ignorance like you would an M.R.I.A.?

Sure you do.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Xianghua,

Cars do not have babies.

so if you will see a car that can produce other cars your conclusion will be that such a car can evolve by a natural process?

What? I did not say that. Why do you make things up that I did not say and pretend that I said them?

Again, if I see a car get pregnant and have a baby, I will think something is terribly wrong with what is happening here. I joked that I would then lay off alcohol. In no case would this be normal. It completely violates known physics for cars to have babies, and for baby cars to grow up to be an adult Ferrari.

What part of "Cars do not have babies" do you not understand?

If I live in a totally different world with different physics where Ferraris have babies, I would seek to discover the physics of that odd world. Until then, I have no idea what that would even be like, so I will not comment on its physics.

If you lived in a world that rained meatballs, would you eat them?
If you lived in a world where cars had babies, can they evolve?

Neither of these questions have anything to do with the real world.

Can we get back to the real world, please?

bogus only under the natural evolution model. of course that under the d esign model it's make sense.

Wait, what?

So after all this argument that the proteins for the flagellum could not all develop at once, you now say they all could develop at once, in fact thousands of protiens could develop at once? Interesting change of views, that is.

So you now no longer support the view you argued long and hard for, that the flagellum proteins could not all develop at once? You have discarded that?

!!!!!!!!!

I still see no need that they all had to develop all at once. I think they developed gradually.

again: you are welcome to call it evolution.

You have seen what other Creationists have posted here. They say the jump from Eohippus to horse is so great, it could not possibly happen at all. But you say it is so trivial, it should not even be called evolution. So which way is it? Ridiculously trivial, or totally impossible?

Scientists say neither is true. The jump is non-trivial, but possible.

here are two of them:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141#[{"num":223,"gen":0},{"name":"XYZ"},70,427,0]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141#[{"num":225,"gen":0},{"name":"XYZ"},70,486,0]

Ah, you are just going to post the same list over and over. Please show me one of those articles that proves the flagellum could not have evolved. You have not even attempted to do that.

again: its not a clear example so we can know for sure. but lets say that they are indeed different creatures. even so those fossils cant prove any evolution because as you can remember we can also arrange cars in some order. but we are both agree that it doesnt prove any evolution.

Huh? I have told you over and over that the fossil record is strong evidence for evolution. Why do you try to pretend I am saying otherwise?

The fossil record shows horses changed with time. Do you think the horse fossil series is evidence of change in the horse family over time?

Do you think that this change came about by incremental changes in DNA in the animals involved?

Again, cars do not have babies. Hence, they cannot evolve.

they are both shared complex systems that need about several parts to be functional. so if we cant go from a car into an airplane then why do you think that we can move from a fish into a tetrapod?

Because fish reproduce with changes. Cars do not have babies.

I repeat. Cars do not have babies.

 

[doubtingmerle]

sorry, multiple post.

 

[pshun2404]

I can only asume you're just joking now but I'll humour you, which legs are backwards?

And why did you ignore the rest of the post which discusses the thousands of fossils showing the transitions between the species mentioned?

I did not ignore them. And the front and back legs of the fossils are jointed backwards (front legs joint forward and horses backward and back legs joint forward and horses backward)

 

[pshun2404]

If you arent a YEC, then what are you? Why would you think the earth is old if you, so far as I can tell, reject modern geology?

If you accept extinction events, that means you would also accept that there is an order to fossils found in the earth. It means you accept radioactive dating and the fossil succession.

Or do you accept the fossil succession, but simply reject that these animals were related to one another?

But if you accepted radioactive dating and the fossil succession, but rejected relatedness of the animals in the earth, then how would you explain something like this...
https://www.sanparks.org/images//parks/kruger/elephants/elephant-evolution.jpg

Do you think these elephants are simply unrelated? Or that the proto elephants like paleomastodon or gomphotherium are simply unrelated? Or do you think they are all elephants but just look different? Yet theyre morphologically distinct, which is all evolution has ever claimed there to be (morphologically distinct, but related animals across strata in a sequence).

Please read my response slowly and completely...

First off, what makes you think I reject modern geology? Because I disagree on SOME facets of what geologists say? That's ridiculous! The layers around the world are NOT uniform and gradualistic (otherwise the ancient earth was a relatively small object getting ever larger and there is NO evidence of that). There are many factors that account for these differences that we learn from geology itself (catastrophe, subduction, and so on). Some geological events appear in different levels in different places in the world. PE scientists even demonstrate this in their explanations.

And in the layers we find three processes:

Creatures appear to develop into many sometimes anatomically variant types
Creatures appear suddenly fully formed with no predessessors whatsoever
And creatures that appear to exhibit long periods stasis (or saltation) and then exhibit rapid bursts of speciation and swift extinction.

And by the way, all these man made artistic works are wonderful by the way.

Diverting to Elephant evolution was a good strategy though (most would fall for it). It is typical though and predictable in discussions like this from people pushing your side...it is part of the logic loop of the programming.

Now re-look at the fossils...take out the two first ones (which may only be related to or extinct forms of other creatures) and remove the misplaced Platy and remove all the intelligently designed lines (where there is actually nothing) and what you have left are all varieties of Elephant that spectiated over time (same as what happens on all cases). These changes YES ARE large anatomical developments (thus macroevolution at work) as a display of variation of the same organism (what we can all Elephants now). But nothing suggests the standard LUCA concept currently accepted.

Mastadons were clearly a form of what we call Elephants but as for gomphotherium there are some reasons to question it (though it may well be a variety also) such as the shape of the skull and lower jaw (but I still count it as an early extinct variety at this point) and please use your intellectual integrity here, in most cases the long snout is totally imagined or assumed...

Now as for use of classification systems they are used in every field to support their hypothesis (even in Astrology) and have little actual merit (but are useful). This is why there have been so many RE-classifications over the last 100 years.

Finally as to "related" there are two senses in which this term applies and I know many evolutionists equivocate back and forth between the two but one does not necessarily equal the other.

One just means we share similar characteristics (like all mammals have hair, breathe through lungs, and so on) the other implies a lineal relationship back to a universal common ancestor.

They are not the same and accepting one does not necessitate accepting the other. If one is true in some case does not imply the other is also true. Now in the case of Elephants YES of course there is a relationship in both senses. Early pachyderms of the Elephant variety are all related lineally but not necessarily to or with Rhinos or Hippos (which also by definition fit the man made homologous classification).

What you should realize is that because something appears or comes before another does not mean the latter came from or was caused by the former. The propensity to assume that is an assumption error it relies of "the appeal to authority" logic flaw.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I did not ignore them. And the front and back legs of the fossils are jointed backwards (front legs joint forward and horses backward and back legs joint forward and horses backward)

Still not getting what you mean by this. All mammals have limbs of a similar structure with joints working the same; for example horses, dogs, and humans. Indeed, all quadrupedal vertebrates have as far as I know similar limb structure.

 

[pshun2404]

do we have the skeleton of lucy hands?

b)some monkeys like the macaque can walk on two for a short time. but they are still monkeys and not a transitional form. actually any transitional cant be evidence for evolution, because we cant prove that they are evolved from each other.

No, actually we do not (but we have man made and somewhat imagined "re-constructions" and "casts"), but we do have some examples from other finds classified as Australo and my only point was that in all of these we see only knuckle walker.

 

[pshun2404]

Still not getting what you mean by this. All mammals have limbs of a similar structure with joints working the same; for example horses, dogs, and humans. Indeed, all quadrupedal vertebrates have as far as I know similar limb structure.

Indeed, and classifying things by similarity of form or function does not necessitate one came from the other, and does not merit an "ancestor of the gaps" explanation. Sorry the precise logic of the previous post alludes you...I would suggest to re-read the post I was responding to and then re-read my response and maybe just maybe it will click in (and that does not mean you will or must agree).

"Still not getting it" just means it does not jibe with the program you have been indoctrinated with (the same one I also was indoctrinated with and defended vehemently for about two decades). Let me state it plainly:

a) there is a difference between real data and the story given to explain it...that is the first thing ALL STUDENTS should be taught...one is what we actually have and the other is a historical narrative attached.

b) "related" doe not imply lineage (although it can also mean that) and SOME (not all) evolutionists equivocate between the two because they count on you not drawing the appropriate logical distinction.

c) WE assume relationship based on similarity of form or function implies lineage but it does not...organisms that suddenly appear in the fossil record with ZERO support of being produced by an evolutionary process demonstrate this

And there are many more than you have been taught, in fact teaching these without a made up sci fi story would make you question and the Darwinian curriculum developers who have selectively excluded these cannot allow this...they have spent far to much money in court cases and political lobbies assuring ONLY there view be taught to the legislated exclusion of others (note: this is the ONLY area of science where this becomes necessary for their success). This true and verifiable fact SHOULD BE a huge red flag.

 

[Herman Hedning]

First off Jim, the legs are backwards for a horse (that is the most obvious red flag)...and why did the Spanish and British have to introduce them into this country if this is where they evolved? Think about it?

Still not getting what you mean by this. All mammals have limbs of a similar structure with joints working the same; for example horses, dogs, and humans. Indeed, all quadrupedal vertebrates have as far as I know similar limb structure.

Indeed, and classifying things by similarity of form or function does not necessitate one came from the other, and does not merit an "ancestor of the gaps" explanation. Sorry the precise logic of the previous post alludes you...I would suggest to re-read the post I was responding to and then re-read my response and maybe just maybe it will click in (and that does not mean you will or must agree). Snip ...

OK, But let's ignore indoctrination and all that for a moment. I just want to know what you mean by "the legs are backward for a horse"? The post by @Jimmy D that started this have images of Mesohippus

and a modern horse.

Are you saying that these skeletons are jointed differently? Because that is not what I'm seeing.

Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, here's the skeleton of a modern horse with the body outlined.

 

[pshun2404]

If you can make a horse out that little creature then that’s fine...I don’t see it. See the elbows/front knees? See how they are bending back not frontward? Crouching down to trap the fish? Look! But okay depending what you determine to be the rear knee I suppose I could be wrong on that one...maybe....

See how different the reconstructions you offered look from this but conveniently actually look more horse like?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you can make a horse out that little creature then that’s fine...I don’t see it. See the elbows/front knees? See how they are bending back not frontward? Crouching down to trap the fish? Look! But okay depending what you determine to be the rear knee I suppose I could be wrong on that one...maybe....

See how different the reconstructions you offered look from this but conveniently actually look more horse like?

Maybe because the front legs AREN'T backwards and the animal does share more similarities with equines that any other animal. Just because you solely don't see it does not mean that you are right.

Ha, I also just noticed the fossil of the little fish beneath it's left front paw.

 

[Job 33:6]

Please read my response slowly and completely...

First off, what makes you think I reject modern geology? Because I disagree on SOME facets of what geologists say? That's ridiculous! The layers around the world are NOT uniform and gradualistic (otherwise the ancient earth was a relatively small object getting ever larger and there is NO evidence of that). There are many factors that account for these differences that we learn from geology itself (catastrophe, subduction, and so on). Some geological events appear in different levels in different places in the world. PE scientists even demonstrate this in their explanations.

And in the layers we find three processes:

Creatures appear to develop into many sometimes anatomically variant types
Creatures appear suddenly fully formed with no predessessors whatsoever
And creatures that appear to exhibit long periods stasis (or saltation) and then exhibit rapid bursts of speciation and swift extinction.

And by the way, all these man made artistic works are wonderful by the way.

Diverting to Elephant evolution was a good strategy though (most would fall for it). It is typical though and predictable in discussions like this from people pushing your side...it is part of the logic loop of the programming.

Now re-look at the fossils...take out the two first ones (which may only be related to or extinct forms of other creatures) and remove the misplaced Platy and remove all the intelligently designed lines (where there is actually nothing) and what you have left are all varieties of Elephant that spectiated over time (same as what happens on all cases). These changes YES ARE large anatomical developments (thus macroevolution at work) as a display of variation of the same organism (what we can all Elephants now). But nothing suggests the standard LUCA concept currently accepted.

Mastadons were clearly a form of what we call Elephants but as for gomphotherium there are some reasons to question it (though it may well be a variety also) such as the shape of the skull and lower jaw (but I still count it as an early extinct variety at this point) and please use your intellectual integrity here, in most cases the long snout is totally imagined or assumed...

Now as for use of classification systems they are used in every field to support their hypothesis (even in Astrology) and have little actual merit (but are useful). This is why there have been so many RE-classifications over the last 100 years.

Finally as to "related" there are two senses in which this term applies and I know many evolutionists equivocate back and forth between the two but one does not necessarily equal the other.

One just means we share similar characteristics (like all mammals have hair, breathe through lungs, and so on) the other implies a lineal relationship back to a universal common ancestor.

They are not the same and accepting one does not necessitate accepting the other. If one is true in some case does not imply the other is also true. Now in the case of Elephants YES of course there is a relationship in both senses. Early pachyderms of the Elephant variety are all related lineally but not necessarily to or with Rhinos or Hippos (which also by definition fit the man made homologous classification).

What you should realize is that because something appears or comes before another does not mean the latter came from or was caused by the former. The propensity to assume that is an assumption error it relies of "the appeal to authority" logic flaw.

So, do you think mastodons are related by lineage to modern day elephants?

If so, you sound as though you're aware that mutations can lead to morphological changes in living beings

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can make a horse out that little creature then that’s fine...I don’t see it. See the elbows/front knees? See how they are bending back not frontward? Crouching down to trap the fish? Look! But okay depending what you determine to be the rear knee I suppose I could be wrong on that one...maybe....

See how different the reconstructions you offered look from this but conveniently actually look more horse like?

There is no reason to assume that is a natural pose for than animal. When animals die bones become disjointed quite often. One has to look a bit more closely The people that reconstructed the animal looked at it much more closely than you are.

That fossil does not have the teeth of a fish eater or any meas of catching one. What led you to that wild conclusion?

 

[Herman Hedning]

If you can make a horse out that little creature then that’s fine...I don’t see it. See the elbows/front knees? See how they are bending back not frontward? Crouching down to trap the fish? Look! But okay depending what you determine to be the rear knee I suppose I could be wrong on that one...maybe....

Elbows bending back, not frontward? Yes, that is what the elbow does in a modern horse as well as in it's ancestors. You can find the elbow between the bones marked K and L in the image in post #1509.

 

[PsychoSarah]

do we have the skeleton of lucy hands?

For Lucy specifically, a couple of the finger bones, which are the two short bones you see at the far right, midway up this image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Lucy_blackbg.jpg . For the species as a whole, we absolutely have hands https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/29/7a/eb/297aebf44353422cad4e17ab760366c5.jpg
In 2011, additional fossils of the foot were discovered, which indicated that this species had foot arches like we do. Chimps do not have these. The arches in our feet help us walk upright without our feet being in pain from bearing our body weight. A year after the Lucy fossil was discovered, 13 individuals of the same species were also discovered. Also, to dispel a common myth, Lucy wasn't the first fossil to be discovered of this species, just a very complete skeleton relative to the other fossils (especially upon initial discovery).

b)some monkeys like the macaque can walk on two for a short time. but they are still monkeys and not a transitional form.

No duh, chimpanzees can also walk on two legs for brief periods of time. However, Lucy's hips are shaped like ours, the species has foot arches (a useless trait to have unless they primarily walked on two legs), their fingers too thin for knuckle walking. You see the thickness in the bones of this chimp hand where they bare weight on their hands https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-941-main-main-big-1415041143.jpg ? Compare that to the A. afarensis hand I showed you. Note how it LACKS that thickness.

actually any transitional cant be evidence for evolution, because we cant prove that they are evolved from each other.

-_- being transitional has nothing to do with whether or not a fossil species is an ancestral species to anything living. Their importance for evolution is aiding in establishing the order at which traits appeared in the evolutionary timeline, not some literal family tree. Note how none of the junctions at which species "meet" are labelled, because these depict evolutionary divergence in order, not "what evolved from what" https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.co...n-evolution-tree-human-evolution-timeline.jpg

You have expressed an extreme lack of understanding what transitional fossils communicate. What evolved from what has never been the point transitional species. They are MARKERS for evolutionary events, such as when bipedal apes began to appear or when lungs show up in the fossil record.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, it isnt exactly a total fish. It is half fish, half tetrapod. It is simultaneously, a whole animal.

It's classified as a fish. Consider that the lungfish is also classified as a fish. There aren't really "intermediate" classifications for intermediate species. Which is why there tends to be a lot of debate over the classification of transitional species.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's classified as a fish. Consider that the lungfish is also classified as a fish. There aren't really "intermediate" classifications for intermediate species. Which is why there tends to be a lot of debate over the classification of transitional species.

It is a tetrapodamorpha. We need to refer to cladistics if we want to be specific. "Fish" isnt really a technical name.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yea, i dont think tiktaalik is technically a fish, but i wont badger you on the topic, we seem to be in agreement of what it is, despite not agreeing on what to call it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yea, i dont think tiktaalik is technically a fish, but i wont badger you on the topic, we seem to be in agreement of what it is, despite not agreeing on what to call it.

Then our discussion on the matter politely ends.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Creatures appear suddenly fully formed with no predessessors whatsoever

Flapdoodle.