Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

And we don't really need to go into the fact all over again that they even got babies and adults wrong by classifying them as seperate species do we?

A scientist once made a mistake? Thanks for sharing this. I will keep that tidbit in mind. There was once a scientist who made a mistake. Got it.

And your point is?

 

[USincognito]

Yup you does. I can see that (just kiddin)!

Avian dinosaur is an oxymoron since a dinosaur is only and always a reptile (usually a large one). It is the modern equivalent of "dragon" a large or winged reptile.

How ironic. Because there were no winged dinosaurs. Pterosaurs are flying reptiles, not dinosaurs. Avian dinosaur is an accurate scientific appellation differentiating avian theropods from non-avian theropods and from other dinosaurian archosaurs (birds are also archosaurs, you do know how cladistics works, right?).

Any guess as to what Ichtyosaurs, Plesiosaurs and Mosasaurs were? (hint - they weren't dinosaurs either)

 

[pshun2404]

That's the problem with simple logic, it doesn't work in a complex subject. Ancestral or not, species with basal characteristics don't immediately go extinct as soon as another population arises. It's the old "if Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans" non-problem.

Again, transtional does not mean ancestral.

No. For decades the the definition has focused on characteristics more than chronology.

Sorry, but no. Homology is science in anatomy. All the more so as we sequence genomes and see that the same genes make the different structures in different lineages.

First off " Ancestral or not, species with basal characteristics don't immediately go extinct as soon as another population arises. It's the old "if Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans" non-problem" does not apply since I never suggested that argument.

But overall you just proved my point, thanks. You guys poured new meaning into a commonly accepted term because the real meaning showed you were not correct in your assessment of the evidence. "Transitional" implies a transition from one thing to another any other NEW meaning is simply rhetorical manipulation for a malicious intent (politicians and cults do it all the time).

AND NO...homology is a way humans group things by appearance or function. It is man made and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's the problem with simple logic, it doesn't work in a complex subject. Ancestral or not, species with basal characteristics don't immediately go extinct as soon as another population arises. It's the old "if Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans" non-problem.



Again, transtional does not mean ancestral.



No. For decades the the definition has focused on characteristics more than chronology.



Sorry, but no. Homology is science in anatomy. All the more so as we sequence genomes and see that the same genes make the different structures in different lineages.

But you don't have Dino DNA to sequence.

You only think they are transitional because they have incorrectly classified them.

If I classify a Husky incorrectly as a seperate species from the Mastiff, I come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook and the Husky and Mastiff. I start believing the Husky or Mastiff is a transitional species leading to the Chinook.

As long as the fossil classification remains seriously flawed it is useless.

 

[Jimmy D]

So if I find two Merychippus fossils, and cannot say for sure that these two were as closely related as a mastif is to a husky, then evolution is falsified?

I've been repeatedly saying a similar thing (although not as eloquently) I don't know why he can't grasp this, it's not difficult.

It just proves that there are some things the fossil record cannot tell us.

But there are other things the fossil record can tell us. It can tell us, for instance, that there was a long series of mammal-like reptile fossils through which early reptiles advanced into mammals. You ignore that, and complain that we cannot know the detailed species identification with certainty. Go by what we do know.

I think he's so attached to what he percieves to be his brilliant 'gotcha' he can't even consider anything else.

It's a frustrating but strangely compelling thing to behold.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Engage your brain and see if you can think of any other ways an organism could be rapidly buried without a global flood.

Hmmm that leads to sedimentary layers? What magic process were you thinking of?

I know, they all decided to go for a swim in the ocean, that's got to be it, picnic by the beach day.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A scientist once made a mistake? Thanks for sharing this. I will keep that tidbit in mind. There was once a scientist who made a mistake. Got it.

And your point is?

Not "a" scientist, every one of them.

They've made another mistake of grievous proportions in their classifications, leading you to believe other fundamental errors.

Earlier you talked about not being able to tell if Dino were closely related like the Mastiff and Husky. So you see no problem with then declaring they are separate species?

Would your conclusion about the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook be correct if you labeled them as seperate species? No it wouldn't, you would see the Husky or the Mastiff as an intermediate species leading to the Chinook species.

You would believe you had evidence of the evolution of species into other species. All because you couldn't tell what was what. And yet you see no problem?

Your own argument defeats you. If you can't tell if they are the same species and closely related like the Husky and Mastiff, you can't tell if they are different species.

And I fail to see your claimed long line leading to mammals. EVERY species fossil found is the same from the oldest to the youngest. Again, it is only those mistakes in classification of the infraspecific taxa that enable you to see links where none in reality exist.

 

[pshun2404]

How ironic. Because there were no winged dinosaurs. Pterosaurs are flying reptiles, not dinosaurs. Avian dinosaur is an accurate scientific appellation differentiating avian theropods from non-avian theropods and from other dinosaurian archosaurs (birds are also archosaurs, you do know how cladistics works, right?).

Any guess as to what Ichtyosaurs, Plesiosaurs and Mosasaurs were? (hint - they weren't dinosaurs either)

There are so many inconsistencies here I will try to be brief.

You say "Avian dinosaur is an accurate scientific appellation differentiating avian theropods from non-avian theropods" Who are you chubby checker? You love doing the twist? That statement right their is a later development via the changing of meaning to commonly accepted terms (not a natural evolution of language, but an intentional alteration of terms to make the hypothesis APPEAR valid). The rest is BS you are throwing in either to make yourself appear to know or to make me appear to be ignorant neither of which is the case. And Pterosaurs are huge reptiles (dinosaurs) that have wings.

Cladistics is just a new way of grouping and classifying that questions the standard tree model. It still depends largely (but less and includes other factors considered) on the assumption that similarity in structural/functional anatomy automatically implies a lineal relationship (which though accepted by the indoctrinated is ony one way of interpreting that evidence).

 

[Jimmy D]

Hmmm that leads to sedimentary layers? What magic process were you thinking of?

I know, they all decided to go for a swim in the ocean, that's got to be it, picnic by the beach day.

Sarcasm? Is that the best you can do? You really can't think of can't think of any other ways? Maybe I was giving you too much credit.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not "a" scientist, every one of them.

They've made another mistake of grievous proportions in their classifications, leading you to believe other fundamental errors.

Earlier you talked about not being able to tell if Dino were closely related like the Mastiff and Husky. So you see no problem with then declaring they are separate species?

Would your conclusion about the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook be correct if you labeled them as seperate species? No it wouldn't, you would see the Husky or the Mastiff as an intermediate species leading to the Chinook species.

You would believe you had evidence of the evolution of species into other species. All because you couldn't tell what was what. And yet you see no problem?

Your own argument defeats you. If you can't tell if they are the same species and closely related like the Husky and Mastiff, you can't tell if they are different species.

Did you miss this post? It does a good job of showing why your incorrect classification mantra is mistaken.

 

[Jimmy D]

Also Justa, I went the the effort of typing this post if you could be so kind as to respond.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

YUP! Looks like does not equal IS. Similarity does not equal relationship in terms of lineage. Go on...

And yet it IS both reptilian and avian.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've given you evidence at least 20 times now. An entire living world.

Asian, African, Latino. Husky, mastiff, poodle. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, and on and on and on. Open your eyes and quit willingly blinding yourself to the truth and you'll actually be able to see.

If an entire living world of infraspecific taxa in every species isn't enough evidence......

You have shown nothing except your own claims. And your use of dog breeds is idiotic since those are MAN-MADE BREEDS not found in nature.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then show me an infraspecific taxa in the fossil record. If they can't match observational data they are wrong.

Why not, they were wrong for close to 200 years when they published all those papers telling us dinosaurs were reptiles.

Why don't you show me evidence that shows the scientists are wrong about transitional fossils and a worldwide flood which you have made claims for many times throughout this thread but have presented ZERO EVIDENCE for.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sarcasm? Is that the best you can do? You really can't think of can't think of any other ways? Maybe I was giving you too much credit.

And besides floods or oceans you have yet to provide a sedimentary process of your own.

So tell us this magical burial that occurred that led to sedimentary layers? I am truly curious.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why don't you show me evidence that shows the scientists are wrong about transitional fossils and a worldwide flood which you have made claims for many times throughout this thread but have presented ZERO EVIDENCE for.

How many times must I give you the evidence? Every species alive today has several infraspecific taxa within it.

I gave you an entire living observable world. Quit ignoring it. As a matter of fact there is no sense in this conversation any more because like your Gobi Desert farse it leads nowhere since you knew it wasn't a desert when those fossils formed. Objected to my claims of weathering then finally admitted sand is weathered rock. You'll object just to object, one of those that refuse to see any evidence right in front of their nose.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have shown nothing except your own claims. And your use of dog breeds is idiotic since those are MAN-MADE BREEDS not found in nature.

And yet shall we discuss genetically altered plants or flies by man? Funny how man made only bothers you when we discuss dogs.

You have yet to explain what the difference in offspring between a Husky and Mastiff would be if man brings them together or natural conditions does so, like famine causing migration etc. So in reality there is no difference except time involved and the number of different varieties.

 

[Jimmy D]

And besides floods or oceans you have yet to provide a sedimentary process of your own.

So tell us this magical burial that occurred that led to sedimentary layers? I am truly curious.

Rivers, lakes, seas, landslides, bogs, volcanoes, earthquakes? I don't know.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How many times must I give you the evidence? Every species alive today has several infraspecific taxa within it.

I gave you an entire living observable world. Quit ignoring it. As a matter of fact there is no sense in this conversation any more because like your Gobi Desert farse it leads nowhere since you knew it wasn't a desert when those fossils formed. Objected to my claims of weathering then finally admitted sand is weathered rock. You'll object just to object, one of those that refuse to see any evidence right in front of their nose.

You aren't giving me evidence. You are giving no scientific papers, no links to anything scientific. You are just saying "Look around" and that's it. All you do is make claims, then give simple, stupid one-liners but give serious evidence and expect us to take your word for it.
I know for a fact that you'd kick up a storm if we did the same to you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And yet shall we discuss genetically altered plants or flies by man? Funny how man made only bothers you when we discuss dogs.

You have yet to explain what the difference in offspring between a Husky and Mastiff would be if man brings them together or natural conditions does so, like famine causing migration etc. So in reality there is no difference except time involved and the number of different varieties.

We're not talking about dogs, flies or plants. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOSSILS AND SEDIMENTS!
I don't why I even bothered taking you off ignore since all you do is repeat the same tired crap ad nausieum and take joy in the fact that you annoy people to no end with it.