Are there transitional fossils?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And what assumption here are you referring to? Please be specific...

Like the assumption that the animal in the fossil you showed isn't a member of the horse (equine) family.
Like the assumption that the recreations of extinct animals used in textbooks are 'propaganda'.
Like the assumption that you are somehow able to completely overturn the theory of evolution by posting on this forum.

 

[Job 33:6]

You may in fact be right about the nasal bone but I do not think so, in fact in the fossil the split is too uniform, and the shapes of the two sides much too exact, but I realize that these types of fossils (like Tik) are badly crushed but that is part of the point. True objectivity does not make an assumption and then reconstruct to fit the pre-conceived model. And this is what happened here. And I do not think your determination about the legs is convincing (its a good way of explaining away what we actually can see but not definite).

And sorry but the image imprinting (artistic creations) used in schools (a typical propaganda technique) over the past century no longer has the same impact on me that they use to or that they may still for you.

I don't think it's an opinion regarding the legs. I think it's clear as day, the leg bones match those of modern day horses and the shoulder begins up near the ribs. You can see the shoulder blade. I'll give you nose, looks like a normal nose to me that's just been cracked but if you don't see that, I wouldn't wrestle over it

 

[Job 33:6]

Not only am I aware of it but I know it is true. These varieties show definite topical morphological changes. Like Jimmy D's example of the Eurasian Balckcaps which speciated into a new variety of Blackcap over about 100 years...they definitely went through some morphological changes but are still blackcaps and more importantly still a sub-species of birds.

Nothing in believing this demonstrable, observable, fact indicates the possibility that they were once reptiles...

But do you think mastodons are related by lineage to modern elephants?

If you see that genetic changes correlate to morphological changes, then in your view, why wouldn't say an alligator be related to a crocodile? Where do you draw the limit on how much morphology can change?

 

[pshun2404]

No, I was stating a fact. Why should I accept anything you say about evolution being wrong, when there are literally hundreds of thousands of articles created by hundreds of thousands of scientists that show that the theory of evolution is right and is a correct reflection of how modern lifeforms appeared, when you have shown zero ability to actually show that evolution is wrong other than repeated comments of "I'm right because I say I'm right"?

And of course differences exist. A horse is different to a zebra, but a zebra is still as much an equine as a horse is, same as a donkey. But what you are doing is not simply noting the differences, but taking the differences and running a complete marathon with them in an attempt to try and show that evolution is wrong.

None of your posts have any logic or reasoning in them.

"No, I was stating a fact. Why should I accept anything you say about evolution being wrong, when there are literally hundreds of thousands of articles created by hundreds of thousands of scientists that show that the theory of evolution is right and is a correct reflection of how modern lifeforms appeared, when you have shown zero ability to actually show that evolution is wrong other than repeated comments of "I'm right because I say I'm right"?"

First off Warden you made direct statements about my person..and my intelligence...that IS using a pseudo-Ad hominem approach...surely you can see that.

Secondly I have read 1000s of articles on matters of evolution and believe many of them are sound. You are implying here that I do not, or secretly do not, believe in Evolution, but what I do not believe is some evolutionist's interpretations, and that is NOT the same thing! Just as I do not believe much of what YEC's give as their interpretations.

Not once have I tried to prove or show "evolution" is not true. It happened and is happening. I have tried to separate the data we actually have from the narrative attached ( a point Ernst Mayr made me really think about back in the 90s) and I do not believe the ancestor of the gaps arguments (IMO at this point LUCA is a hypothesis driven mythology, nothing more).

And I am not "right because I say I am right", I am simply pointing out aspects of the reality that are usually swallowed whole as part of the confirmation bias prevalent in evolutionism.

And if you have ever studied the history of science or the philosophy of science you would know that consensus (argumentum ad populum) is based on appeal to authority (their the ones who should know, so I will believe whatever they say) and over time a whole lot of what is now accepted as "established" will be changed, rejected, and/or replaced.

 

[pshun2404]

I don't think it's an opinion regarding the legs. I think it's clear as day, the leg bones match those of modern day horses and the shoulder begins up near the ribs. You can see the shoulder blade. I'll give you nose, looks like a normal nose to me that's just been cracked but if you don't see that, I wouldn't wrestle over it

Sorry! We will have to agree to disagree on the legs, I believe the opposite is "clear as day".

 

[pshun2404]

But do you think mastodons are related by lineage to modern elephants?

If you see that genetic changes correlate to morphological changes, then in your view, why wouldn't say an alligator be related to a crocodile? Where do you draw the limit on how much morphology can change?

Alligators and Crocs ARE related...they just NEVER came from amphibians even via 1000 non-reptilians classified as in-betweens. Reptiles are all variations of reptile (and there are 1000s of sub-species of reptile that have evolved over time - evolved)...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"No, I was stating a fact. Why should I accept anything you say about evolution being wrong, when there are literally hundreds of thousands of articles created by hundreds of thousands of scientists that show that the theory of evolution is right and is a correct reflection of how modern lifeforms appeared, when you have shown zero ability to actually show that evolution is wrong other than repeated comments of "I'm right because I say I'm right"?"

First off Warden you made direct statements about my person..and my intelligence...that IS using a pseudo-Ad hominem approach...surely you can see that.

Secondly I have read 1000s of articles on matters of evolution and believe many of them are sound. You are implying here that I do not, or secretly do not, believe in Evolution, but what I do not believe is some evolutionist's interpretations, and that is NOT the same thing! Just as I do not believe much of what YEC's give as their interpretations.

Not once have I tried to prove or show "evolution" is not true. It happened and is happening. I have tried to separate the data we actually have from the narrative attached ( a point Ernst Mayr made me really think about back in the 90s) and I do not believe the ancestor of the gaps arguments (IMO at this point LUCA is a hypothesis driven mythology, nothing more).

And I am not "right because I say I am right", I am simply pointing out aspects of the reality that are usually swallowed whole as part of the confirmation bias prevalent in evolutionism.

And if you have ever studied the history of science or the philosophy of science you would know that consensus (argumentum ad populum) is based on appeal to authority (their the ones who should know, so I will believe whatever they say) and over time a whole lot of what is now accepted as "established" will be changed, rejected, and/or replaced.

A 'pseudo' ad-hominem? There is no such thing as a 'pseudo' ad-hominem. It's either an ad-hominem or it's not.
First off, I never questioned your intelligence. Stating, or rather suggesting, that you do not have a degree in a field that you are talking about is not saying that you are not intelligent. It's simply saying that your claims do not have any validity to them.

Secondly, you claim that you know about evolution or even accept it, but from so many of your posts on this tread alone, there is nothing to back up your claims. For you to even make your claim about Lucy not being a human ancestor, you had to take a textbook that was released TWO DECADES BEFORE Lucy was discovered to even attempt to add weight to your comments.

And yes, you are trying to say show that the theory of evolution is wrong because you are clearly saying, in plain black and white, that scientists have evolution wrong. Your claim that LUCA is a 'hypothesis driven mythology' shows that.

And the only one trying to appeal to authority has been you. If any person here puts down a link to a scientist who studies evolution, that is not an appeal to authority, is showing what the facts actually show.

 

[pshun2404]

No, I was stating a fact. Why should I accept anything you say about evolution being wrong, when there are literally hundreds of thousands of articles created by hundreds of thousands of scientists that show that the theory of evolution is right and is a correct reflection of how modern lifeforms appeared, when you have shown zero ability to actually show that evolution is wrong other than repeated comments of "I'm right because I say I'm right"?

And of course differences exist. A horse is different to a zebra, but a zebra is still as much an equine as a horse is, same as a donkey. But what you are doing is not simply noting the differences, but taking the differences and running a complete marathon with them in an attempt to try and show that evolution is wrong.

None of your posts have any logic or reasoning in them.

Yes, horses, Zebras, and Donkeys are all equine...we agree on this...as were Pliohippus...but MAYBE not EO and it should not be taught that it is an early horse (maybe, could be, or we believe that...are all fine, but IS is neither objectivity or truth)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Alligators and Crocs ARE related...they just NEVER came from amphibians even via 1000 non-reptilians classified as in-betweens. Reptiles are all variations of reptile (and there are 1000s of sub-species of reptile that have evolved over time - evolved)...

And yet where did the original reptile come from?
There is more evidence that reptiles evolved from primitive amphibians than reptiles just spontaneously appearing in the fossil record.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, horses, Zebras, and Donkeys are all equine...we agree on this...as were Pliohippus...but MAYBE not EO and it should not be taught that it is an early horse (maybe, could be, or we believe that...are all fine, but IS is neither objectivity or truth)

But there is evidence that EO IS an early equine. The skeletal morphology shows that.

 

[pshun2404]

A 'pseudo' ad-hominem? There is no such thing as a 'pseudo' ad-hominem. It's either an ad-hominem or it's not.
First off, I never questioned your intelligence. Stating, or rather suggesting, that you do not have a degree in a field that you are talking about is not saying that you are not intelligent. It's simply saying that your claims do not have any validity to them.

Secondly, you claim that you know about evolution or even accept it, but from so many of your posts on this tread alone, there is nothing to back up your claims. For you to even make your claim about Lucy not being a human ancestor, you had to take a textbook that was released TWO DECADES BEFORE Lucy was discovered to even attempt to add weight to your comments.

And yes, you are trying to say show that the theory of evolution is wrong because you are clearly saying, in plain black and white, that scientists have evolution wrong. Your claim that LUCA is a 'hypothesis driven mythology' shows that.

And the only one trying to appeal to authority has been you. If any person here puts down a link to a scientist who studies evolution, that is not an appeal to authority, is showing what the facts actually show.

"self-imagined scenario

possibly zero scientific qualifications

who doesn't have the stones to try and actually show

you are a living, breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect"

Dunning Kruger effect: a cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude.

Yeah that borders very closely to an ad hominem as far as I can see, and that's only the one post there have been others. Have I EVER said such things about YOU personally?

And I do "show"...I give reasons for my view...no I do not simply repeat the mantra I was indoctrinated with. Oh and by the way many scientists who are evolutionists do not believe Lucy has been demonstrated to be a definite human ancestor.

 

[pshun2404]

And yet where did the original reptile come from?
There is more evidence that reptiles evolved from primitive amphibians than reptiles just spontaneously appearing in the fossil record.

Please by all means show this evidence...perhaps some semi or quasi ampheptiles or reptibians?

 

[pshun2404]

But there is evidence that EO IS an early equine. The skeletal morphology shows that.

Have it your way...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"self-imagined scenario

possibly zero scientific qualifications

who doesn't have the stones to try and actually show

you are a living, breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect"

Dunning Kruger effect: a cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude.

Yeah that borders very closely to an ad hominem as far as I can see, and that's only the one post there have been others. Have I EVER said such things about YOU personally?

And I do "show"...I give reasons for my view...no I do not simply repeat the mantra I was indoctrinated with. Oh and by the way many scientists who are evolutionists do not believe Lucy has been demonstrated to be a definite human ancestor.

That very last sentence shows it again. Give me evidence to support your claim that scientists who accept evolution (there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', just like there is no such thing as a 'gravitationist') do not accept that Lucy has been demonstrated to be a definite human ancestor.
And no. Scientists who wrote texts from BEFORE Lucy was discovered do not count.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have it your way...

And...? No snobby comeback? No attempt to even try and show me that I'm wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are so incorrect I will not even address this rant, and by the way I did answer Xiang...

Sorry, I don't see that as a rant. I was simply explaining that you seem to be posting a different view du jour every day with little consistency. In particular I wrote:

As best I can tell, pshun's views drift back and forth between Gap Theory (ancient fossils lived before Gen 1:2, and all got wiped out and were replaced by a final creation 6000 years ago), Progressive Creationism (millions of creation events matching conventional geologic timetable), Flood Geology (young earth with most fossils coming from the flood), and Omphalos Creationism (world created with dino fossils buried in place on day one.)
​

Now if I misunderstand, and you are indeed consistently arguing for one of these views, or consistently arguing for something different from these four views, please make it clear what you are arguing for.

When you respond to a post saying your writings seem incoherent and evasive by saying you won't even address that criticism, that seems to validate that your writings here are indeed incoherent and evasive.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry! We will have to agree to disagree on the legs, I believe the opposite is "clear as day".

How? What bones in particular look backwards to you?

 

[Job 33:6]

Alligators and Crocs ARE related...they just NEVER came from amphibians even via 1000 non-reptilians classified as in-betweens. Reptiles are all variations of reptile (and there are 1000s of sub-species of reptile that have evolved over time - evolved)...

I've asked the question about relatedness between mastodons and elephants 3 times now. Not sure why you wont respond.

And you didnt respond to my other question either. If you are aware that mutations can lead to morphological change, where do you draw the limit of how much morphological change mutations can cause?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dinohippus is a much more likely candidate...the front knee joint bends in the correct fashion, there is a single nasal bone, and it was a herbivorore. The fact that it was endemic to North America is a question for me but I am not above being incorrect on this point. The same with Pliohippus, especially because of the legs and feet, but also for the same reasons mentioned above (it was a range grazer like the horse)...

Dinohippus an ancestor of the horse? "much more likely".

And Pliohippus? Same answer.

Ok, let's keep going.

How about Merychippus?
Parahippus?
Miohippus?

Here are the pictures again. Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years . Now where do you draw that line between horse-family and not-horse-family? Starting from the bottom, where do they stop being literal horse relatives?

The fact that you have trouble drawing that line --not sure of which side to place Dinohippus--seems to prove my point that we are dealing with a clear case of evolution, a clear sequence of intermediates between Eohippus and the horse/zebra/donkey.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Alligators and Crocs ARE related...they just NEVER came from amphibians even via 1000 non-reptilians classified as in-betweens. Reptiles are all variations of reptile (and there are 1000s of sub-species of reptile that have evolved over time - evolved)...

Wait, what? All reptiles evolved from a common reptile ancestor? Previously you seemed to be saying all fish came from a common fish ancestor, and all birds from a common bird ancestor. If all this evolution happens, why cannot all mammals come from a common mammal ancestor? Mammals have less diversity than reptiles do.

It would seem to me that if you say mutations and selections could evolve a single ancestor reptile into a crocodile, boa constrictor, turtle, lizard and garden snake, you allow that quite a bit of evolution can happen.

If all this evolution happens, why is it not possible that an ancestor of eohippus evolved into a rhino and zebra?