Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

to me the answer is yes. its a realy odd design otherwise. and if we can conclude design its realy easy to accept a speciel creation.

Except you need to ignore the fossil record to come up with a 6000 year old creation.

You believe you were created by God, yes? But how did he do it? Did he not begin with a single fertilized egg that "evolved" into a baby and then into an adult? Do you think it odd that God used that way to create? That seems to be the way he does it.

again; the speciel creation predict that too. do you agree with speciel creation because of that?

How does a 6000 year old creation of life predict that we will find layers with fossils that date to 600 million years old? How does it predict fossil layers 3 miles high in North Dakota, with all the layers showing fossils in sequence as known by evolution? How does it predict that the oldest layers would have reptiles but no mammals, that there would be layers above those ancient layers that have a progression of mammal like reptiles, and that mammals would show up in the record only after thousands of intermediates? All of that seems more consistent with evolution, to me.

 

[xianghua]

Except you need to ignore the fossil record to come up with a 6000 year old creation.

who is talking now about 6000 years? i already said that we now talking about an old earth.



and yes- id also predict an intermediates fossils. like those we found in a human design.

 

[doubtingmerle]

who is talking now about 6000 years? i already said that we now talking about an old earth.

Oh, puhleeze.

Yes, of course, you have said you are open to an old earth.

The question is how long you think plants and animals were on earth. The fossil record shows multicellular life has been around over 600 million years; that the first mammal like reptiles were about 300 million years ago; that the Hyracortherium ancestors of horses were about 50 million years ago; and the first Homo Habilis was about 2 million years ago. You have been asked over and over if you agree with such dates, and you refuse to answer. So when you refuse to answer these questions, then you have no right to get huffy when people misunderstand.

You refer to "special creation"; you refer to the possibility that the miles of fossils in North Dakota were all piled up in one flood; you attack radiometric dating; you apparently think dinosaurs lived with humans; and your DNA argument seems to say dinosaurs lived less than 17,000 years ago. Put that all together, and you certain look like a young earth creationist in regards to when you think animals were created. Some creationists stretch that date out to maybe 20,000 years, so you may do that, but that is still a long way from saying the Cambrian was 600 million years ago.

So you could answer if you wished. When do you think the first animal was on earth? If you continue to refuse to answer, then all we can do is guess what you are saying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i actually do talked about a self replicating objects.

Too bad they aren't real ha?

 

[xianghua]

Oh, puhleeze.

Yes, of course, you have said you are open to an old earth.

yes. i indeed open to this idea. now, where is you scientific evidence for evolution? or you dont have any?

 

[PsychoSarah]

but its still bacteria and not even evolved a new complex trait like a flagellum or a motion system or a light detector.

I literally produced bacteria that glowed in one week from bacteria that didn't have the trait. Bacterial evolution is insane to watch. The population also had resistances to two different antibiotics. Do you understand that is like a population of people that is immune to cyanide? Furthermore, there are studies of bacteria that bred them to have new structures, and some of it wasn't even intentional.

remember the cell-phone argument? we cant just make small changes in a watch and change it into a cell-phone by changing only one part at time or by adding parts.

Parts plural, and being allowed to change the shape of the parts and make them customized. You said nothing that demand the watch stay a watch, or not transition through being something that is neither a watch nor a phone but have aspects of both. You also never said that I couldn't build a watch around the phone. You do realize that all of these types of steps I have mentioned do occur in evolution, and that if you don't allow them, you render your already weak and faulty analogy even weaker, right?

actually they do. a an airplane is basically a flying car with wings. the first plane was a kind of a car with a propeller.

Ha, you don't know much about air planes. Aside from perhaps the engine, how is this
http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/wrights/photos/1903-flight-wright-airplane.gif

anything like this
http://www.sparksci.com/images/www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/images/ford/1903-ford.jpg

Besides, since cars and planes do not reproduce, and do not have ancestry to share, the comparison is still garbage, and always will be garbage. You keep insisting on comparing apples to rocks, and despite so many people calling you out on it, I can't fathom why you keep trying to do it as if the comparison matters. Living things can do tons of things that cars and airplanes cannot, that watches and cell phones cannot. Stop wasting your time, my time, and everyone else's time with a type of argument that was destroyed and dead DECADES ago.

its a good point. i never heared any scienstis that define what is a "wrong place fossil". so its basically a non-scientific term. therefore the claim about wrong place fossil is non-scientific

Well, while I have given examples of what a fossil in the wrong place would be, I suppose I haven't technically defined it, so now I will:
A "wrong place" fossil is when a fossilized organism is found in a sedimentary layer that differs in age from the time period at which the organism lived via evolutionary models to such an extent that it defies said evolutionary models. In order to qualify, the fossil must not be faked or tampered with such as to mess with radioactive dating, and it must date the same as the sediments it is found in. An example would be a mammal fossil of any mammalian species found to date 400 million years or older, an ape being found to date older than 55 million years, etc.

That definition work for you, or are you going to demand something else?

so an ape with a dino fossil isnt a big issue because its onlt about 30my earlier then we thought?

No, that would be, but finding a land animal 30 million years farther back than expected would be fine. The closer to modern times evolutionary events happened, the more accurate our predictions on them, and the less wiggle room for deviations. Likewise, the farther back an evolutionary event, the more chance of error, and thus the more wiggle room for deviations from predictions.

 

[ripple the car]

What occurs to me is not so much the existence or non-existence of transitional fossils, but that we have among us species that could be evolutionarily considered "transitional species", as well.

Hoatzin, mudskippers, lungfish, monotremes, and lancelets.

 

[doubtingmerle]

yes. i indeed open to this idea

...of an old earth, while apparently saying the first animal was 6000 years ago or so. That view is totally at odds with the fossil record. From what I can tell that is your view, but you refuse to clarify. Why do you hide? When do you think the first animal was created?

Oh, and my evidences for evolution? Here-- 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .

 

[PsychoSarah]

What occurs to me is not so much the existence or non-existence of transitional fossils, but that we have among us species that could be evolutionarily considered "transitional species", as well.

Hoatzin, mudskippers, lungfish, monotremes, and lancelets.

Every species is transitional, because over time and generations, dynamics of populations are in a continuous state of change. The change may speed up or slow down, but it is always happening. It is nice when some living organisms corroborate observations of evolutionary events in the fossil record by experiencing similar changes, but a lungfish is no more transitional than a squirrel or a human.

 

[ripple the car]

Well, that's where I would disagree. When we assume that the traditional, Darwinian "evolutionary tree" is correct, and that the descendents of certain fish gradually evolved into animals we would describe as amphibians, we can argue that lung fish certainly do seem to be transitional. Only they fail to evolve into anything apart from more lung fish.

Every species is transitional, because over time and generations, dynamics of populations are in a continuous state of change. The change may speed up or slow down, but it is always happening. It is nice when some living organisms corroborate observations of evolutionary events in the fossil record by experiencing similar changes, but a lungfish is no more transitional than a squirrel or a human.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well, that's where I would disagree. When we assume that the traditional, Darwinian "evolutionary tree" is correct, and that the descendents of certain fish gradually evolved into animals we would describe as amphibians, we can argue that lung fish certainly do seem to be transitional. Only they fail to evolve into anything apart from more lung fish.

What about the transitionals that do descend into other animals? That has been what this thread is about.

For instance we have talked a lot about the horse fossils, that show a clear evolution of the horse over the last 55 million years. Do you agree that animals like Mesohippus were intermediates between the Hyracotherium and the modern horse and Zebra? See Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years and picture below.

 

[xianghua]

I literally produced bacteria that glowed in one week from bacteria that didn't have the trait.

are you refer to bioluminescence? if so: are you argue that the genes for this trait just evolve in one week?

Bacterial evolution is insane to watch. The population also had resistances to two different antibiotics. Do you understand that is like a population of people that is immune to cyanide?

actually its very easy to get a bacteria a resistance to antibiotics. in many cases all you need is just one point mutation on the ribosome genes or cell wall.

Parts plural, and being allowed to change the shape of the parts and make them customized. You said nothing that demand the watch stay a watch, or not transition through being something that is neither a watch nor a phone but have aspects of both. You also never said that I couldn't build a watch around the phone. You do realize that all of these types of steps I have mentioned do occur in evolution, and that if you don't allow them, you render your already weak and faulty analogy even weaker, right?

so if i will give you a watch, you can change it into a cell-phone by adding only one part each step and it will also be a functional in a different way?

Besides, since cars and planes do not reproduce, and do not have ancestry to share, the comparison is still garbage, and always will be garbage.

it doesnt matter. because even if they was self replicating- they still be evidence for design. so the self replicating traits doesnt change the fact of design detection.

An example would be a mammal fossil of any mammalian species found to date 400 million years or older, an ape being found to date older than 55 million years, etc.

so a fossil of ape that date about 57 my will flasified evolution theory?

 

[xianghua]

Oh, and my evidences for evolution? Here-- 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .

you already gave 2 of those suppose 29 evidence. and i already explained why they are not evidence for evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

are you refer to bioluminescence? if so: are you argue that the genes for this trait just evolve in one week?

Well, I'm not sure you would count it as the genes for the trait evolving in one week or not. Basically what happened is this: bacteria can integrate genetic bits left behind from dead bacteria, and integrate it into their genome. It just so happens that when one strain of E. coli integrates some of the genes of a different strain of bacteria, bioluminescence is a byproduct. Neither strain of bacteria glows though, but rather a gene for bioluminescence is "built" through combining genes from one bacteria and another. Like I said, bacterial evolution is crazy to watch.

actually its very easy to get a bacteria a resistance to antibiotics. in many cases all you need is just one point mutation on the ribosome genes or cell wall.

You act as if a small number, even one mutation, can't change a structure into a flagellum, but can incur resistance to poison? What even, do you think the structural changes in the former are GREATER than in the latter? A lot more has to change in physiology to resist a cellular toxin than it does to produce a flagellum. I'm not saying you are wrong, point mutations can result in antibiotic resistance in bacteria, I just question why you think it can't result in flagella as well.

so if i will give you a watch, you can change it into a cell-phone by adding only one part each step and it will also be a functional in a different way?

Could end up that way unintentionally. Maybe it'll make for a great fashion statement too, who knows? I can use a dime to screw in a loose screw if I don't have a screwdriver on hand, but no one would claim that a dime was designed for that... or would they if people often used them for that purpose? Our own minds so prone to putting things into neat little categories is our enemy sometimes. How many people would guess just by observing people using chain saws today that their original purpose was to preform C-sections?

it doesnt matter. because even if they was self replicating- they still be evidence for design. so the self replicating traits doesnt change the fact of design detection.

-_- the issue is, again, this: life has no properties that demand design. If life did have these properties, you wouldn't need to even try to make the comparison of apples and rocks that is comparing a watch to a living organism. Your comparison is entirely useless on all fronts, even if life is designed, that's how pointless this has been. Actually point out the properties that REAL living things have that you think demand design.

so a fossil of ape that date about 57 my will flasified evolution theory?

Hard to say, since it is the scientific community as a whole that would have to make that judgement. I'd give a range of extreme revision of the theory to disproving parts of it as a likely outcome. I'm but one person, sir, I know not precisely how others would react exactly, just a general idea of the likely response.

 

[pitabread]

so a fossil of ape that date about 57 my will flasified evolution theory?

The entire theory? No, because the theory of evolution is much broader than what we find in the fossil record.

It would call into question the standard accepted phylogenetic descent of apes and push back the timeframe of their existence.

 

[xianghua]

Basically what happened is this: bacteria can integrate genetic bits left behind from dead bacteria, and integrate it into their genome. It just so happens that when one strain of E. coli integrates some of the genes of a different strain of bacteria, bioluminescence is a byproduct. Neither strain of bacteria glows though, but rather a gene for bioluminescence is "built" through combining genes from one bacteria and another. Like I said, bacterial evolution is crazy to watch.

ok. but its not a new complex trait. the same for antibiotic resistance: the antibiotic have a specific shape that match some of the bacteria part (like the ribosome). so when this specific part is changing because of a simple mutation- the bacteria become resistant because the antibiotic is fail to match the bacteria part. again: no new complex trait or structure involve.

A lot more has to change in physiology to resist a cellular toxin than it does to produce a flagellum.

but not in bacteria. the flagellum need at least several parts to be functional. so its much more complex and need a lots of new mutations. even if we will need about 2 new protoein domains to made a functional flagellum its means a lots of amino acid changes.

Hard to say, since it is the scientific community as a whole that would have to make that judgement. I'd give a range of extreme revision of the theory to disproving parts of it as a likely outcome. .

so even an ape that date about 60 and even 70 will not falsified evolution theory then. we can just push back those creatures.

 

[pitabread]

so even an ape that date about 60 and even 70 will not falsified evolution theory then

What do you think the theory of evolution actually *is*?

I don't think you even know what it is you seem so desperate to falisfy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok. but its not a new complex trait. the same for antibiotic resistance: the antibiotic have a specific shape that match some of the bacteria part (like the ribosome). so when this specific part is changing because of a simple mutation- the bacteria become resistant because the antibiotic is fail to match the bacteria part. again: no new complex trait or structure involve.

How was bioluminescence not a new complex trait? It most certainly was new, as the previous generations did not have the trait. And I would say that its mode of inheritance was plenty complex; since bacteria can easily pick up pieces of DNA from other bacteria that, when integrated, can produce traits not seen in either the bacteria that "donated" the DNA piece nor the receiver of the DNA piece, that could easily provide a single generation mechanism for the formation of flagella (not that a single generation mechanism for that trait is necessary, though you act like it is).

but not in bacteria. the flagellum need at least several parts to be functional.

Genes not only can code for multiple "parts", but most genes functionally do (around 3). There is no reason that a single mutation couldn't contribute to multiple parts of a flagellum, which is only 4 parts away from a typical secretion mechanism, and only 1 part away from functioning as a secretion mechanism. Yes, just 1 part away from the transition between two completely different functions. Such drastic changes with so few mutations are pretty common in single celled organisms. BTW, at that point where the secretion mechanism is just about 1 mutation away from being a flagella, it's not less functional than a typical secretion mechanism, but MORE functional, as in, better at that function.

so its much more complex and need a lots of new mutations. even if we will need about 2 new protoein domains to made a functional flagellum its means a lots of amino acid changes.

No, flagella are actually quite simple, you are blowing their complexity out of proportion. Most cell parts in bacteria are just a collection of a couple different proteins at their basic functional level.

so even an ape that date about 60 and even 70 will not falsified evolution theory then. we can just push back those creatures.

-_- look, what is your obsession with a single piece of evidence disproving the entire theory? You have to have evidence that not only disproves most of the theory, but also have a suitable REPLACEMENT in line that explains the observations better before you can even begin to show evolution the door. Do you honestly think that anything that has earned the title "theory" in science is just going to be gone with one bit of evidence? The fact that it would take so much to disprove evolution entirely is a testament to how much evidence supports it. I have explained this to you before. This one theory makes up about 25% of the study of biology as a whole. What's going to even contradict that much in one go, let alone be strong enough to disprove on its own? Practically nothing. That doesn't mean the theory is unable to be challenged or disproven, just that it would take a lot more than finding a fossil that doesn't fit the order predicted. A pig legitimately giving birth to a human without our intervention would accomplish a lot, though.

Your demands for being able to take down a scientific theory in one hit are becoming tiresome to me. If you could easily do that, it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

 

[xianghua]

How was bioluminescence not a new complex trait? It most certainly was new, as the previous generations did not have the trait.

if we are talking about moving genes then its not new at all. remember that even according to evolution a complex trait need at least milions of years. so even according to evolution we cant see evolution of a complex trait in real time. otherwise it will flasified evolution (if you remember the other discussion we had).

Yes, just 1 part away from the transition between two completely different functions.

how? are you saying that you only need one part to change a ss into a flagellum? are you aware about the fact that even a ss and a flagellum doesnt share even the same genes? (they are homologous and not identical).

No, flagella are actually quite simple, you are blowing their complexity out of proportion.

a tipical flagellum have about 30-40 parts:

The FliK protein and flagellar hook-length control

"In total, at least 40 proteins are involved in flagellar formation and function, encoded by at least 13 different operons in the Enterobacteriaceae (Kutsukake et al. 1990)"

. Do you honestly think that anything that has earned the title "theory" in science is just going to be gone with one bit of evidence?

this is actually prof dawkins claim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

if we are talking about moving genes then its not new at all. remember that even according to evolution a complex trait need at least milions of years. so even according to evolution we cant see evolution of a complex trait in real time. otherwise it will flasified evolution (if you remember the other discussion we had).

It is new, since the gene insertion resulted in the creation of an entirely new gene, with a different function than was present in the first generation. These bacteria are not descended from individuals that glowed at all. Also, every change in function for a bacteria is relatively complex and significant, since their basic structure is so simple. When you add 1 to 4, that's a 25% increase in amount. When you add the same amount to 1000000, that's only an increase of 0.0001%. It's all relative. And who told you it needs millions of years? Evolutionary speed depends on generation time, not literal time passage, which I have told you before. E. coli can have about 26,000 generations in a single year. Multiply that by a million, and you get 26,000,000,000 generations in 1 million years. Let's compare that to humans, which have a new generation of about 25 years, but I'll be extra generous and lower that to 20, which is closer to the generation length that we have had through the majority of human history, making it such that there would be about 50,000 human generations in 1 million years. In comparison, E. coli has more generations than that within 2 years. Hence why it is pretty silly to try and make claims about evolutionary developments in terms of years rather than generations. Starting to understand why we use bacteria to study evolution so much? Furthermore, bacterial evolution is significantly different than eukaryotic evolution (especially in multicellular ones such as ourselves), so there are mechanisms which can cause genetic change in bacteria that simply don't apply to us (it's not like I can touch a dead person and incorporate some of their genes into my genome, but bacteria can do that to each other).

how? are you saying that you only need one part to change a ss into a flagellum? are you aware about the fact that even a ss and a flagellum doesnt share even the same genes? (they are homologous and not identical).

-_- sigh, perhaps this will help explain http://www.abc.net.au/science/indepth/img/4251468/flagella.jpg
Note that the 9 shared ancestry genes in the structures are in reference to 3 different parts, not the entire structures as a whole.

Also, you really need to look at type III secretion mechanisms, since there are plenty of bacterial secretion mechanisms entirely different from flagella.

a tipical flagellum have about 30-40 parts:

The FliK protein and flagellar hook-length control

"In total, at least 40 proteins are involved in flagellar formation and function, encoded by at least 13 different operons in the Enterobacteriaceae (Kutsukake et al. 1990)"

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n1/images/nrmicro1493-i1.jpg flagellum
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...nt-secretion-systems-found-in-Pseudomonas.png secretion system examples for bacteria. Notice any similarities between the first image and the examples on the far right? The flagella evolved from secretion systems, you can even see a partly retained secretion system in the flagella, how hard is this to understand? I have been telling you this whole time that it would only take a handful of mutations at most to transition from a secretion system to a flagella, NOT that it would take only a handful of mutations to produce a flagellum FROM SCRATCH. Most evolutionary developments involve alterations of pre-existing structures such that they have a change in function, NOT something 100% new in every regard. Hence why your lungs and your digestive tract share orifices, even though that's a choking hazard.

To mention the horrible comparison you keep trying to push, you aren't even talking about turning a watch into a phone; you're talking about just building a phone. Which, biologically, is actually a more difficult thing to do (again why your comparison of the watch becoming a phone is a garbage comparison, since it would be easier to just build a phone than to turn a watch into a phone).

this is actually prof dawkins claim.

Dawkins is a tactless twit and is not the lord of evolution, who deems all that is in the theory. He's especially bad at talking theology and really easy to quote mine. Furthermore, I have no obligations to defend his personal (and often rash) claims. That's on Dawkins, go bother him for a defense of his claims.