Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker,

I see you have no answer to the fossil record.

We find fossils that are millions of years old. You have no explanation for why this is so, do you?

Because some are old. You confuse me with those from either side that accept anything their high priests tell them to believe, whether the high priests of evolution or creation.

Horse fossils appear in a sequence in the fossil record from Eohippus to zebras. You would expect it to be zebras, horses and donkeys all the way down to 6000 years or so, and then nothing else, yes? And yet we find this progression. How do you explain it?

Your fantasy. Is this based on the same extensive anotomical studies that concluded colecanth fossils were transitional to tetrapods? Oops, we actually found one and the DNA showed that belief based upon extensive anotomical studies wasn't even in the ball park... But I understand your faith that all the others are correct, it's only too bad we can't test their DNA and throw them out of the ballpark too.

Where is the new genetic information coming from? If every species goes from 4 alleles at each spot to hundreds in a few century, where did the new information come from to create these new alleles?

Its your flawed starting point. They were already created with all possible combinations within the genome. New alleles as you like to say are merely what "already exists" transcribed into a new combination. Nothing new was created, just what already exists written in a new order.

Junk DNA does not come from good DNA degrading. It comes from junk being inserted.

So you say, but all they know is it exists. Since they do not have DNA from the original human to prove either of us correct, it will remain contested.

How do you know new DNA never came into existance?

Have you ever observed it happening? So then saying it has requires more faith than just believing the evidence that it doesn't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Those are fair points for sure. I'd say the most damning evidence against the idea that 2 individuals could give rise to the diversity we see in any particular genus or species is the cheetah (a species that actually experienced a genetic bottleneck about as extreme as the biblical flood would inflict, albeit farther in the past). They are all still so genetically similar that they are all pretty much tissue matches for each other.

Right. If there were 2 dogs 4000 years ago, the species would have bottlenecked with a limited gene pool. At that point it would have taken a long time for them to start diverging significantly.

Except the Cheetah occurred according to flawed dating techniques 10,000 years ago.

No different than if I took a handful of wolves of the same breed (even though we know all dogs came from them) killed off the rest or isolated them from others for a couple thousand years, and that one breed would be bottlenecked, all within a few thousand years without new gene flow.

Yet it still won't change the fact that from just a few wolves all of the breeds we see today came forth, in a mere couple thousand years. Yet we could easily create a bottleneck with any of the wolf or dog breeds in just a thousand years by isolating a few from the rest of the gene pool.

Nothing extraordinary at all or surprising, except to an evolutionist perhaps since the cheetah should be evolving new genomes and should never reach a bottleneck what with all those "new alleles" being created, huh?

So much for the theory of "new alleles" being created. Just accept the data it can only combine what is already existing and can not create anything new and you won't be so confused by bottlenecks. Don't you just hate it when your own examples falsify your beliefs?

 

[Jimmy D]

Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Why lookee see, diversification within the species with no evolution needed to explain it at all... and it took a whole nine months.....

Aaand were back to the same old question, where did asians come from originally?

 

[Astrophile]

You all are the ones that classified them, not me. So tell me, is it correct?

Afro-Asians - Wikipedia

Your link doesn't say that Afro-Asians form a new human subspecies. Also, you are the one who has been insisting that marriages between Africans and Asians produce a new subspecies; it is not scientists who have said so.

Most animals including man until the transportation age bred only within their own race.

But just as with dogs when an Asian is bred with an African we get a new subspecies Afro-Asian.

Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Why lookee see, diversification within the species with no evolution needed to explain it at all... and it took a whole nine months.....

 

[xianghua]

It could be that tetrapods did indeed evolve earlier than expected. What do you want us to do if we find tetrapod fossils earlier than expected?

so there is no problem to push back ape into dinos age. this is my point. now lets move on...

Please prove that a spinning motor needs a designer.

so a spinning motor can evolve naturally? if so: a car and airplane (that also have spinning motor inside) arent evidence for design too. do you agree or disagree?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Aaand were back to the same old question, where did asians come from originally?

From whatever two mated and led to them, before that, at the beginning, from Adam and Eve.

But you got to start at the correct belief to match reality. Adam's genome which was perfect and contained all possible variations, was split into two. Half went into Eve. Hence the "two shall become one flesh". Which is how all variation occurs, when those two sets of chromosomes are brought back together, many combinations are possible.

Now I know you believe that variations occurred from one, but sorry, that's not how we observe it happening in reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your link doesn't say that Afro-Asians form a new human subspecies. Also, you are the one who has been insisting that marriages between Africans and Asians produce a new subspecies; it is not scientists who have said so.

Sure they have, they just choose to set humans apart from the other animals, even if they say we are just animals and call it races instead of subspecies, or breeds, or taxa.

Don't blame me because they claim we are just evolved animals, then apply a completely different designation to this animal species than they do to every other animal species.

Almost as if they subconsciously know we are separate from the other animals and can't bring themselves to classify us as the rest.

But then we go back to those scientific definitions evolitionist's are so fond of ignoring.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

 

[Jimmy D]

From whatever two mated and led to them, before that, at the beginning, from Adam and Eve.

But you got to start at the correct belief to match reality. Adam's genome which was perfect and contained all possible variations, was split into two. Half went into Eve. Hence the "two shall become one flesh". Which is how all variation occurs, when those two sets of chromosomes are brought back together, many combinations are possible.

Now I know you believe that variations occurred from one, but sorry, that's not how we observe it happening in reality.

Who mated, two middle easterns? I'm not following. Two middle easterns gave birth to a couple of chinese babies that grew up and moved to China?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who mated, two middle easterns? I'm not following. Two middle easterns gave birth to a couple of chinese babies that grew up and moved to China?

It's called migration and mating with those of your own characteristics. I thought you were familiar with all this stuff?

But you forgot the 8 on the Ark that got off and eventually migrated from the Middle East.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's called migration and mating with those of your own characteristics. I thought you were familiar with all this stuff?

So "whatever two mated and led to them" must have come from somewhere. Did these two have this special gene that contained the variation to produce a chinese baby, what race were they?

 

[Jimmy D]

But you forgot the 8 on the Ark that got off and eventually migrated from the Middle East.

So two went to China and produced the Chinese race, a couple came to Europe and produced us Europeans, then we've got the Indians, Australian aboriginies, the indiginous South Americans, etc. That's quite a feat, and you're suggesting this occured 4500 years ago?

Have you got any evidence that this happened whatsoever? Presumably such an event must have left some evidence in our DNA or in the cultural records of some of these civilizations?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So "whatever two mated and led to them" must have come from somewhere. Did these two have this special gene that contained the variation to produce a chinese baby, what race were they?

Who knows. I personally could care less what "race" Adam and Eve were. But there is no reason except fantasy to believe humans came about any different than dogs come about.

That would be like asking what breed came before the cocker spaniel had we not the extensive knowledge already of their lineages but only had the cocker spaniel and the bones of the ones before.

Of course I understand the evolutionist would get confused and classify all those bones as separate species from the cocker spaniel due to his pre conceived beliefs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So two went to China and produced the Chinese race, a couple came to Europe and produced us Europeans, then we've got the Indians, Australian aboriginies, the indiginous South Americans, etc. That's quite a feat, and you're suggesting this occured 4500 years ago?

Have you got any evidence that this happened whatsoever? Presumably such an event must have left some evidence in our DNA or in the cultural records of some of these civilizations?

Your own theory says we all came from one area and migrated outwards. And as I have already proven from direct empirical observation, it takes but nine months to create a new subspecies in the Homo sapiens sapiens species. But go ahead and keep ignoring that fact as well.

But we have already been through the reason your dating methods are flawed and get progressively worse the further back we go. But you consistently ignored your own science then as you would just ignore it now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Junk DNA does not come from good DNA degrading. It comes from junk being inserted.

Actually, junk DNA can be the result of mutations rendering what would normally be a gene with a function useless. However, insertion via mutation or viral infection is where the majority of the junk comes from.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because some are old. You confuse me with those from either side that accept anything their high priests tell them to believe, whether the high priests of evolution or creation.

Huh? I said nothing about you accepting what your high priests tell you to believe. It was a simple question if you believe most fossils are millions of years old. Can you answer please?

Your fantasy.

Uh no, it is not my fantasy that fossils have been found in the horse series that show evolution from Eohippus to the zebra. We have found many horse fossils that confirm the timetable I presented. See Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years .

OK, now that we know that these fossils exist in sequence, how do you explain that sequence?

Its your flawed starting point. They were already created with all possible combinations within the genome. New alleles as you like to say are merely what "already exists" transcribed into a new combination. Nothing new was created, just what already exists written in a new order.

Uh no, that is not how genetics works. Each animal has two chromosomes at each spot, one from the father and one from the mother. How could the dogs on the ark possibly have had more than then the normal two genes of each? And yet we probably have dozens of variations of each gene in the dog family. Where did all that variety come from? I think they came from may wild dogs that contributed there genes, and to mutations in the last 20,000 years.

So you say, but all they know is it exists. Since they do not have DNA from the original human to prove either of us correct, it will remain contested.

Uh no, junk DNA has been linked to retroviruses that insert into the DNA. See NeuroLogica Blog » Endogenous Viruses and “Junk” DNA .

You seem to be suggesting that the dogs on the ark had genes lined up for all the dog breeds, and different dogs lost different traits to junk DNA, and kept certain traits. That simply is not the case. The junk DNA is at the same spot in all dogs. The problem is that the specific code that codes specific traits at specific locations has many variations in dogs. How can those many variations exist at the same spot in the genome if all dogs came from one pair?

Have you ever observed it happening? So then saying it has requires more faith than just believing the evidence that it doesn't.

Uh, DNA has been known to change into a new form of DNA. It is called a mutation. And yes, mutations have been observed to be beneficial.See Are Mutations Harmful? .

 

[doubtingmerle]

Except the Cheetah occurred according to flawed dating techniques 10,000 years ago.

So you accept the cheetah went through a bottleneck in which only a few survived? If all the animals were reduced to two by Noah's flood, why don't we see the bottleneck in other animals? But other animals show there has been great variety in the genome for many thousands of years. This indicates there never was a flood that reduced all animal populations to two per species.

Nothing extraordinary at all or surprising, except to an evolutionist perhaps since the cheetah should be evolving new genomes and should never reach a bottleneck what with all those "new alleles" being created, huh?

Uh, Cheetah DNA has been diversifying for the last 10,000 years. We can tell by the amount of diversity that the bottleneck must have been about 10,000 years ago. See Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah. .

 

[doubtingmerle]

so a spinning motor can evolve naturally? if so: a car and airplane (that also have spinning motor inside) arent evidence for design too. do you agree or disagree?

Not all spinning motors evolve naturally.

 

[Jimmy D]

Your own theory says we all came from one area and migrated outwards

Not my theory, but the human race had to start somewhere.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not my theory, but the human race had to start somewhere.

It did, it started with the creation of Adam and Eve

 

[Jimmy D]

And as I have already proven from direct empirical observation, it takes but nine months to create a new subspecies in the Homo sapiens sapiens species. But go ahead and keep ignoring that fact as well.

I don't believe you've proven anything of the sort, are you incorrectly classifying the different races as sub species? The irony of that is almost tangible.

But we have already been through the reason your dating methods are flawed and get progressively worse the further back we go. But you consistently ignored your own science then as you would just ignore it now.

Not my dating methods, but if you think that you've refuted them with the lame arguments you're getting off creationist propaganda sites you are mistaken, I believe Doubtingmerle has already addressed your errors.