Are there transitional fossils?

[Speedwell]

Actually the way it works is, Speedwell is wrong...

Notice how it just leaves you hanging? It's like the Darwinian effect without a cause. The last time we did this you were arguing ad hominem exclusively. Theistic evolutionists are uniform in this approach with only rare theological or scientific exceptions. Yet they pontificate like experts.

The claim that life can come from non-life through mindless unintentional processes is analogous to claiming a car can come from something that isn't a car through mindless unintentional processes.

I understand neither you or evolution is making that claim, but once we figure out evolution, we must then ask the bigger question, "what life caused life on earth and the process of evolution?" Some of us have skipped over the details of evolution and gone straight for the bigger question and God answers. Discovering more about how life developed on earth is just icing on the cake.

Then why do creationists disparage attempts to do so? Don't they like frosting?

 

[mark kennedy]

Then why do creationists disparage attempts to do so? Don't they like frosting?

Actually I like fossils, transitionals and adaptive evolution as an interesting topic of discussion. It's puzzling that an apologist for Darwinian evolution would show no real interest.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually I like fossils, transitionals and adaptive evolution as an interesting topic of discussion. It's puzzling that an apologist for Darwinian evolution would show no real interest.

Not a field I know much about, I'm afraid. Math and physics are more in my line. But I'm not really an apologist for Darwin, although I find the theory plausible--theoretically, mathematically it works. But it is only a scientific theory, and as such it could in principle be overturned. I oppose creationism for theological reasons.

 

[Chriliman]

Then why do creationists disparage attempts to do so? Don't they like frosting?

I think anytime reality or evidence goes against our particular interpretation of scripture, we get defensive. I also think that can be a way that God challenges our false interpretations of scripture. On the other hand, He also uses scripture to challenge our false views of reality and evidence. He just wants us to know and accept the truth in all aspects of life.

I do greatly appreciate your insights regarding the evolution vs creation debate

 

[mark kennedy]

Not a field I know much about, I'm afraid. Math and physics are more in my line. But I'm not really an apologist for Darwin, although I find the theory plausible--theoretically, mathematically it works.

Ok, maybe there is something you might be interested in discussing:

Figure 1 shows the estimated mutation rate as a function of ancestral population size assuming T=5 mya and a generation time of 20 years. From the caption for Figure 1: Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans, 2000)
​

It's a complicated formula but I've had the same question for years and never got a straight answer. What is the mutation rate if you change the divergence from 1.33% to 4%? Just a thought, in case you might be interested

But it is only a scientific theory, and as such it could in principle be overturned. I oppose creationism for theological reasons.

Likewise, my principle concern is theological. I can sum up my approach to theology in three points. Scripture is foundational, doctrine is essential and simplicity is the prize. Theology is more then a worldview or a philosophy of history, it's metaphysical in it's scope. Metaphysics is said to explore the substantive element that transcends all reality. The transcendent principle here is the doctrine of creation that permeates, quite literally, everything from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22. The principle here is that the prophetic oracle of God creating life in Genesis 1 is the same God who promises life eternal in the gospel.

My question is simply this, if God promises life eternal and the resurrection, incarnation and regeneration, are all to be taken literally, then why not original creation?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is random and relatively rare is spontaneous mutations, the odds of an adaptive trait on an evolutionary scale from a random mutations are vanishingly small

Dude.... every newborn human on average has about 50-ish mutations in its DNA. Indeed, most of these are neutral in there effect.
But let's assume a population of 1 million individuals.
This means that, on average, a new generation will in fact in total carry some 50 million mutations.

Let's assume, for ease of understanding, that 99% of these are neutral in their effect.
That means that 500.000 of those mutations are not neutral in their effect.
Let's further assume that 99% of those with an effect, are harmfull and 1% of them are beneficial.
That means that 5000 of those mutations per generation are beneficial.

You see, odds of anything happening has to be seen in the perspective of "amount of trials".

These copy errors result in things like cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and the fragile X syndrome.

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation, Genetics 1998)​

Why are you citing an article that is pro-evolution to argue against evolution?

http://www.genetics.org/content/148/4/1667
​

So many misconceptions, so little time.

You can certainly say that again......

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I will when they stop correcting matters of fact or opinion with curt condescending melodrama.

And there you just did it again. Fallacies are illogical because there is no substantive point of reference. The subject (me) is wrong, not why, just wrong. Being an evolutionist doesnt make you intellectually superior based solely on the other person being a creationist. You pontificate the meaning of a latin expression without any reference to the word or its meaning. A classic ad homined taunt.

It's not an ad hominem to say that you are wrong though! Just because you can't accept that you are wrong doesn't make it an ad hominem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so if we will find first cars, then a commercial cars, and then a trucks in a specific order we should conclude that those vehicles evolved from each other?

Cars don't reproduce with variation and do not compete for limited resources.
So why would they be subject to a process that is driven by exactly those properties??

ok. lets take a specific example. according to evolution we should find first fish, then a missing links between a fish and a tetrapod, and then a tetrapod. but we actually find the wrong order- first we have found fish, then a tetrapod, and then a missing link (tiktaalik):

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

a fossil in the wrong place.

lol!

Nevermind that this fossil was actually found by prediction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

its doesnt matter.

When discussing a process that is literally powered by reproducing with variation and competing for limited resources to survive... it kind of matters to point out that cars
- don't reproduce
- don't pass on traits
- don't compete for limited resources.

This is like arguing against gravity "because hammers don't fall down in the space station".

even if they was able to reproduce its will not prove any evolution but design. so the point i have made is valid.

Your point couldn't be more invalid if you tried.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The claim that life can come from non-life through mindless unintentional processes is analogous to claiming a car can come from something that isn't a car through mindless unintentional processes.

The topic is evolution. Not the origins of life.

I understand neither you or evolution is making that claim

Then why mention it, as if it is relevant?

, but once we figure out evolution, we must then ask the bigger question, "what life caused life on earth and the process of evolution?"

Actually, the question of origins of life is not a question that necessarily only follows once the origins of species has been solved.

It's a different question. In fact, it's even a different field of science.
Sure, there perhaps is some kind of overlap - in the sense that evolution theory at least makes some predictions about "first life", like for example that it wasn't a multi-cellular animal.
But that's about it.

Evolution similarly makes predictions about geology as well... that the earth is old.

Nevertheless, we can study evolution without ever addressing origins of life and vice versa.
Or we can do both simultanously - which is exactly what is happening. There are evolutionary biologists who study evolution and there are bio-chemists who study the origins of life.

Different fields, different studies.

Some of us have skipped over the details of evolution and gone straight for the bigger question and God answers.

Actually, you had that answer ready even before you asked the question.

Discovering more about how life developed on earth is just icing on the cake.

No. It's just a different answer to a different question.

 

[Jimmy D]

The body size was about average, the cranial capacity was a little below average due probably to probably to her gender.

How on earth do you get, 'don't examine these skulls', from Lucy is a chimpanzee. By all means learn all you can about them because they do have their story to tell, and mythographers have been making up stories about them.

Well I had to ask, as you were pronouncing that such fossils were "automatically a human ancestor" and that "no one had explored the possibility it was a transitional chimpanzee".

 

[xianghua]

Just a mammal? Maybe not, but if it was from a modern species, like our own, it most certainly would.

why? we can claim that maybe some geological process insert this fossil into the wrong layer or something.

 

[Speedwell]

why? we can claim that maybe some geological process insert this fossil into the wrong layer or something.

So we can continue to propagate the lie of evolution and reject whatever it is you have to offer--which I notice you are shy of explaining to us.

 

[xianghua]

So we can continue to propagate the lie of evolution and reject whatever it is you have to offer--which I notice you are shy of explaining to us.

what about this argument?:

best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

 

[Speedwell]

what about this argument?:

best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

Not a successful argument for ID, if that's what you're pushing.

 

[xianghua]

Not a successful argument for ID, if that's what you're pushing.

why? do you think that robot with a living traits isnt evidence for design?

 

[Speedwell]

why? do you think that robot with a living traits isnt evidence for design?

It seemed to me that the conclusion reached on that thread was that the evolved descendants of an organic robot designed to replicate with heritable variation would not be distinguishable in terms of the presence of design from the evolved descendants of a life form capable of replicating with heritable variation which arose by natural causes.

 

[xianghua]

It seemed to me that the conclusion reached on that thread was that the evolved descendants of an organic robot designed to replicate with heritable variation would not be distinguishable in terms of the presence of design from the evolved descendants of a life form capable of replicating with heritable variation which arose by natural causes.

so such a robot will be evidence for design or not in this case?

 

[Speedwell]

so such a robot will be evidence for design or not in this case?

Depends on the robot. My view of it is that there is never direct evidence of design in anything.

 

[Papias]

I know Lucy has a chimpanzee skull. Pedantic references to random anatomical terms won't change that. She was never more the a knuckle dragging tree dwelling ape.

You didn't just claim lucy "has a chimpanzee skull", but that lucy " was a chimpanzee", which is just plain wrong, just as if I said you were a chimpanzee. Aa has many features of upright walking that are obviously different from a chimp - that's why real biologists give Aa's not just a different species name, but a whole different genus. But of course, this isn't a surprise, since we all know you aren't a biologist, and that you disagree with them anyway. 1

Your backpeddling claim of:"Lucy has a chimpanzee skull" is also just plain wrong. As I corrected you before, there are aspects of Aa's skulls that show they were not chimps. 2 Here are some:

Lucy's skull was in pieces as I recall but nearly complete, there is little question with regards to this being an ape. With a gracias skull in Africa it's a chimpanzee, possibly antideluvian.

No, you claimed that you knew her cranial capacity, which is not possible to get from the fragments of Lucy's skull. 3 The cranial capacity of Aas is known from some of the over a dozen other fossils. Here it is mark. Hint - the skull fragments are at the top end of the skeleton.

From the other Aa fossils, we see that Aa fits nicely in the gradual, smooth evolution from chimp-like ancestor to human.

You mean modern chimpanzees inhabit the Savannah of equatorial Africa and the Bobobos currently inhabit the jungles of the Congo.

hmmm..... 4 Interesting, then, that a simple check on their habitat give this:

Common Chimpanzees or Pan troglodytes, are found almost exclusively in the heavily forested regions of Central and West Africa.​

......... the myth of the stone age ape man was crafted by the Leakys.

More false statements.

The genetic basis for the three food expansion on the human brain from that of apes has never drawn so much as a passing remark.

Sure it has, mark - remember all the past times when myself and others explained that to you? We even mentioned specific mutations and experts on this stuff. Yet another simply false statement.

The fact that Lucy would have been contemporary with Homo habilis and Turkana Boy doesn't even occur to you.

Of course it doesn't, because it's false. Lucy is dated at 3.2 million years ago, and H. habilis lived from ~2.1 to 1.5 million years ago. 5

Turkana boy lived ~1.5 to 1.6 million years ago - quite different from 3.2 million years ago. 6

I would be shocked if you seriously addressed anything of substance I have said.

Really? Then you must be shocked, because not only did I correct you repeatedly in post #126, but I've shown how you are wrong around a half dozen times in just this post. That's "seriously addressing" your repetitions (over years!) of your false statements.

The rest of your post seems to be the typical trash talk and put downs we've seen before, though you haven't talked about "ghosts in the fog", btbopoyhak, nor "shooting fish in a barrel" yet today. Maybe put them in the next post?

In Christ-

Papias