Are there transitional fossils?

[PsychoSarah]

There is not a single instance when separate species interbred with another species, except incorrectly classifying those subspecies as separate species.

That is not the singular species qualification, sir. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but they are NOT the same species, since the vast majority of the offspring from that cross are infertile. Crosses between plant species are actually quite common. Ever heard of hybrid vigor? Seriously.

Finches are not separate species, they are subspecies of the same species, which is why they can interbreed. They are so closely related because they are in fact one species.

-_- not all finches can interbreed, and I am not sure why you think they can. Most of the ones on the Galapagos islands could if they lived on the same island, but they live on separate islands with different habitats (the reason for their physical differences). If two groups are prevented from interbreeding via distance from each other, they are considered separate species with enough time.

Though, just to clarify, not every single species of finch is biologically compatible with every other finch. They don't even all belong to the same genus, but rather are in the same family of birds.

If they would correct their classifications then there would not be a single instance of separate species mating.

You are literally only talking about 1 distinction that can lead to two groups being classified as different species, and you don't even have it correct. Two different organisms are considered different species if they cannot breed to produce FERTILE offspring. How did you manage to remember only part of it? Also, correct their classifications? The official classification doesn't match the definition you personally think it should, and thus you arrogantly declare the official species definition wrong. Yours is much more generic and less useful. Also, what about bacteria species, and other organisms that don't generally reproduce via breeding with another member of their species? That seems like a pretty useless qualification for species when it comes to them, doesn't it? And you wonder why the same hat won't fit every head equally well, sigh.

The second two animals interbreed, or even have the possibility of interbreeding, they are one species.

For once, I'd understand using "kind" over "species" in a statement. This one, since this definitely doesn't match the actual definition of what a species is.

You all just keep arguing semantics while ignoring the scientific definitions.

-_- you're the one with a middle school definition of species trying to present it as more valid than a professional level one. You are entirely mistaken about how that label works, and why it isn't necessarily consistent among the various kingdoms of life on Earth. A few plants, some single celled animals, many protists, a few fungi, and all archea and bacteria primarily reproduce asexually. Your incomplete definition of species can't even handle that form of reproduction.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution is the change of traits over time, it's a phenomenon in nature, nothing more. Distinctly different species can interbreed in certain instances but the rule of thumb is that species do not interbreed with other species.

What changes over time? Every single fossil species discovered is the same from the youngest frisson found to the oldest...

Oh you mean those imaginary lines drawn to imaginary ancestors to support those imaginary links.

 

[xianghua]

Again it can be seen that the pheonotype of animals progressed with time, and it can be inferred that the DNA also progressed as the phenotype progressed. Knowing what we know today about DNA and changes of animals, the most likely explanation for why the DNA and the phenotype advanced with time is that the animals evolved. Add on top of that all the other evidence for evolution, and we have a convincing case.

You turn to car evolution, which is analogous. When things are analogous, not every aspect of the analogy matches reality.

In cars, drawings are analogous to the DNA. Drawings of the Ferrari did indeed evolve with time, as engineers copied the old drawings with modifications to make new drawings for new models.

And in cars, factories are analogous to mothers. And the factories (mothers) of the Ferrari did evolve with time, as incremental changes were made to the factories that produced each year's model.

So in many ways the evolution of the Ferrari is analogous to the evolution of the horse. But cars made of metal do not give birth to other cars made of metal. That seems to be your whole point: that you have found a series of things made of metal that do not give birth to things made of metal. Of course not! But the designs, the drawings (analogous to DNA), and the factories (analogous to mothers) literally did evolve with time.

great. so organizing objects in order cant prove that those objects evolved from rach other. this is the whole point. even if those cars are self replicating and made from organic conponents, the best explanation will be that those cars designed.

 

[xianghua]

It depends on the spinning motor. Some are designed, some maybe not.

It depends on the spinning motor. Some are designed, some maybe not.

so if a spinning motor isnt evidence for design, then we cant conclude design in any case. i guess that even a car isnt evidence for design according to this logic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so if a spinning motor isnt evidence for design, then we cant conclude design in any case. i guess that even a car isnt evidence for design according to this logic.

Some spinning motors are designed, some maybe not.

Car motors were designed.

 

[Speedwell]

so if a spinning motor isnt evidence for design, then we cant conclude design in any case. i guess that even a car isnt evidence for design according to this logic.

Right. Functional organization is never, by itself, evidence of design.

 

[xianghua]

Some spinning motors are designed, some maybe not.

its equal to saying that some cars are designed and some arent.

Car motors were designed.

first: why a car motor is evidence for design when an organic motor isnt?

 

[doubtingmerle]

great. so organizing objects in order cant prove that those objects evolved from rach other. this is the whole point. even if those cars are self replicating and made from organic conponents, the best explanation will be that those cars designed.

Suppose somebody knows nothing about Ferraris except that if he looks at them in order of date, they show a clear progression of design. He could conclude that the design of the Ferrari advanced with time. Suppose he learns that designs of cars are expressed in drawings. Then one would naturally conclude that the design of those drawings advanced with time. He could look at them and conclude that, in many cases, the drawings for one year's model must have been very similar to the previous year's model. Suppose he learns that engineers make and modify drawings. He could conclude that engineers made drawings for subsequent Ferraris, by taking previous drawings, and reworking them to make new designs.

Ok, now suppose somebody knows nothing about animals in the horse series except that if he looks at fossils in order of date, they show a clear progression of design. He could conclude that the design of the horse family advanced with time. Suppose he learns that designs of animals are expressed in DNA. Then one would naturally conclude that the design of that DNA advanced with time. He could look at the fossils and conclude that the DNA for one fossil in the series must have been very similar to the previous fossil. Suppose he learns that mutations and natural selection modify DNA through a process known as evolution. He could conclude that mutations and natural selection modified the DNA for subsequent animals in the series, by taking previous DNA and reworking it to make new designs.

In both case we conclude that the design was changing. In both cases we conclude that the record of the design (DNA or drawings) must have changed. In both cases we can conclude that the most likely method of change in the design is the same as the method of change in the design today.

Your whole argument is one of forced analogy. Both cars and animals change in design. Therefore you conclude that animal design must have changed in the same way car design changed. But why would that be? We already know how animal design changes with time: mutations and natural selection. Why do you insist that in the past it had to be like the way car design changes today? That makes no sense.

Questions for you. Please answer:
1. Do you agree that animals in the horse family changed with time, from Eohippus to Equus?
2. Do you agree that where we see incremental changes in design in the horse family, that the DNA would have most likely been similar between the two, with incremental changes in the DNA?
3. Do you agree that the way DNA has been observed to change is by mutations and natural selection (evolution)?
4. Did the DNA change from the Eohippus genome to the Equus genome through a process of evolution? If not, how do you think the new DNA came into existance?
5. If each animal in the horse series did not come about by evolution, what is the method that you propose that it happened. Do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that each new animal popped into existence out of nothing?

 

[Speedwell]

first: why a car motor is evidence for design when an organic motor isnt?

It's not the car motor itself which is evidence for design, it is the signs and traces that it was manufactured.

 

[doubtingmerle]

first: why a car motor is evidence for design when an organic motor isnt?

We know how car motor designs are changed. Engineers sit at their desks and make changes to the drawings.

We know how designs of cells are changed. Mutations modify the DNA, which gets selected by natural selection.

I conclude that car motors in the past probably changed by a very similar process that they change today (engineers change the drawings) and that cells probably changed in the past by a very similar process that they change now (mutations and natural selection change the DNA).

 

[doubtingmerle]

What changes over time?

Fossils.

Every single fossil species discovered is the same from the youngest frisson found to the oldest...

That's odd, because when I line up fossils in the horse series, I seem to notice some differences.

 

[PsychoSarah]

great. so organizing objects in order cant prove that those objects evolved from rach other. this is the whole point. even if those cars are self replicating and made from organic conponents, the best explanation will be that those cars designed.

Ugh, the evolutionary timeline isn't the evidence for organisms being biologically related. It is a PRODUCT of the evidence that organisms are biologically related, to various extents.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Trilobites thrived in the Cambrian and continued on beyond the Ordovician. That disproves your claim that all Cambrian life was wiped out at the end of the Cambrian. Your simple picture even shows Trilobites in the Ordovician.

Except I didnt say they were all wiped out, I said all but a select few.

Uh no, Punk Eek has nothing to do with explaining why all Cambrian life got wiped out before the Ordovician. After all, we can see that it never happened.

Except it did, thats why they were all buried quickly in sedimentary layers.

Oh concerning your dog argument.

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia
"The closest living relative of the dog is the gray wolf and there is no evidence of any other canine contributing to its genetic lineage."

Oh for instance, a global flood would leave a global layer of debris, with the largest and heaviest rocks at the bottom gradiating up to smaller and lighter objects and finer particles at the top of the pile. We find plenty of evidence of local floods, but nothing of a global flood.

And the oceans basins would show a layer of terrestrial debris.

You have yet to dig into a single basin in the ocean, what you talking about????

After a global year-long flood, the soil would have been saturated in salt. How could anything grow on that?

Says the person that is supposed to believe in adaptation........

Mangrove, the Tree That Captures Carbon, Filters Saltwater, and Stops Storms | DiscoverMagazine.com

Plants you can water with seawater give hope to coastal farmers

How could plant life possibly get re-established? Even if Noah had saved seeds and the soil was somehow undamaged, how can all those plants get established with 2 each of every plant eater on earth hungry for a meal? They would gobble up every blade of grass or start of a tree as soon as it started to come up.

And hence animals migrate.....

Uh, how hot would this water be that is 400 miles below the earth's surface? Had enough of this come up to cover the earth, Noah would have vaporized.

Except it was warm, which is why it rained for 40 days and nights. You do understand when warm water meets cooler higher atmosphere air it condenses as rain, don't you? Perhaps you just dont understand what fountains are.

Underground Temperature

"the temperatures in this last were proved to be largely affected by convection, the water at the top being too warm, and that at the bottom not warm enough."

"whereas the temperatures actually observed at those depths in the well at La Chapelle in October, 1873, when the water had been undisturbed for a year and four months, were 59'5° and 76°. It thus appears pi'obable that the upper part of the well is warmed, and the lower part cooled, by convection."

"We have thus direct. evidence that convection had made the temperature at 3,390 feet 205° R., or 46° F."

"A well sunk at Yakoutsk, in Siberia, to the depth of feet, disclosed the fact that the ground was permanently frozen to this depth, and probably to the depth of 700 feet."

No geologists want us to believe that both temperature and pressure continue to increase the deeper one goes. And yet near the core we have rock that is so porous it holds up to three oceans worth of water. If pressure continued to increase beyond a few miles, this rock would not be porous, but would be totally solid and incapable of holding water.... So again, we can go by theory or by the fact we know ringwoodite is extremely porous and exists in quantity near the earth's core. Of course if people accepted science these false beliefs would not creep in, since the deeper one goes the more rock is also above one, so that gravitational forces lessen as one nears the center, not increase. And thus we can see while millions of cubic meters of porous rock exist where geologists believe it shouldn't due to incorrect beliefs about increasing pressure.....

So you will have to excuse me if i accept direct empirical evidence of porous rock near the core, not solid rock from extreme pressure...... Hmm, theory over data, which to choose.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fossils.

That's odd, because when I line up fossils in the horse series, I seem to notice some differences.

When you throw those subspecies all together you mean. You want me to believe that in the past the Husky changes into the Chinook without mating with the Mastiff, so to speak.

Now if you want to propose that fossil A mated with fossil B and produced fossil C, I will be glad to discuss that theory that matches observations.

But as long as you keep insisting the Husky evolved into the Chinook (so to speak) without mating with the Mastiff, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Just as in the fossil record the Husky remains Husky. The Mastiff remains Mastiff and a new variation comes into the record when they mate. It is the only empirical observations you have....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Uh, no I do not want to ignore alleles.

You are moving the goal posts. You had claimed a ridiculously large number of possible descendents from a human pair. The actual number of distinct possible gene combinations a child can inherit from the gene pool of his two parents (not counting mutations) is 2 to the 46th power, which is about 70 trillion.

You are now switching to the question of how many different combinations of gene are available for a baby, if we assume the gene at each locus can be selected from any member of the human race. In that case the number is truly astronomical, due to the number of alleles in the human race.

Except the ABO locus which is the most studied genetically because of blood diseases has been found to contain at the minimum of 70 alleles. So even if the alleles were to copy without any change there is 70x70 possible combinations from each parent. Now we throw in all the combinations possible when alleles are transcribed in different orders, all the alleles yet undiscovered at the other loci, and the number does indeed become astronomical just for the human species variation alone......

Why wouldnt I consider how many possible combinations of genes are available for the baby? That's um, what makes the baby...... Why would someone try to exclude it in the first place?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow, previously you had said Eohippus was a member of the horse species. Now you appear to be agreeing with me that Eohippus was not an ancient member of the horse species.

I dont think its related at all, but then you keep showing me lined up fossils with it in the lineage, so i said its your picture, not mine....

So since Eohippus is not a horse, but looks very much like Orohippus, which looks very much like the next fossil in the series, and so on up to the top of the series, where we finally reach a fossil that looks very much like the horse and zebra, how can Eohippus not be classed a transitional?

Wouldnt have a clue, I am not the one classifying it as a transitional to anything, evolutionists are. Looks more like a hyrax, but hey.....

Nobody said the rates of change of all features were constant. Evolution varied randomly in different directions, eventually reaching the horse and zebra.

You mean one subspecies mated with another subspecies to create another subspecies, right?

Right, if we all have is Hyracotherium or Eohippus, they do not look like a horse. And yet somehow, just several posts back, you said the Eohippus was a member of the horse species.

No, I said you keep posting it in the fossil line up, so you believe it is. I then said since you place it in the lineup, if you want to put it there then its a horse species. if you want to remove it from the lineup, then it certainly isnt. But then you claim it isnt a horse species, yet post puictures of them being in the horse lineage.

Eohippus was not a horse (in the horse species) but when we get all the fossils, then Eohippus can clearly be seen as transitional, a member of the extended horse family.

IF it actually belongs in the lineup to begin with, but probably why the classified it as a rodent first off.....
IF it belongs there then it is no more a transitional than the Husky is a transitional to the Chinook. Just a subspecies.

Are you joking, or are you really not able to understand this?

For every species in the fossil record, there are many cousin species that come from the same ancestor species, perhaps through a series of intermediate species. As "cousin species" they will be very much alike. When we find one that looks like what we would expect in an ancestor at that point it time, we can be assured that this is likely either the ancestor or a cousin species of an ancestor.

Except they are not cousin species, they are subspecies. They are no more cousin species than the Husky is a cousin species to the Mastiff.

But then you cant tell if they can mate so I understand your confusion since even when they mate right in front of your nose you cant seem to tell. Or are you joking when it comes to claiming to accept your own definition you posted? And dont give me that "gray area" speil, unless your going to answer what gray area you find in birds mating in front of your nose?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is not the singular species qualification, sir. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but they are NOT the same species, since the vast majority of the offspring from that cross are infertile. Crosses between plant species are actually quite common. Ever heard of hybrid vigor? Seriously.

You mean have I heard them refuse to follow their own definition when they crossbreed plants and animals? Sure, I recognize pseudoscience when I see it from refusing to follow their own definitions.....

-_- not all finches can interbreed, and I am not sure why you think they can. Most of the ones on the Galapagos islands could if they lived on the same island, but they live on separate islands with different habitats (the reason for their physical differences). If two groups are prevented from interbreeding via distance from each other, they are considered separate species with enough time.

That is so nonfactual its actually pathetic. Why before the grants began to study a few of them they said none of them could interbreed. Then you got the DNA data that says they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, every last one of them. That you have yet to observe it says nothing, since for 200 years they were humpin like rabbits and you never once saw it..... Claimed then what you claim now, that they couldn't....

Genomes reveal Darwin finches' messy family tree - BBC News

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

"In fact, the team's findings suggest that hybridisation is very important to these birds' evolution. In particular, they saw that the rise and fall of pointed beaks in one species - once again, the medium ground finch - was driven by hybridisation with a different, pointed-beak species."

Though, just to clarify, not every single species of finch is biologically compatible with every other finch. They don't even all belong to the same genus, but rather are in the same family of birds.

Another nonfactual claim.....

"She told the BBC: "The fact that they're finding this hybridisation going on - this genetic mixing - it's quite a seminal finding."

Yah it is, but the question now remains, will they continue the pseudoscience or correct the mistaken classifications?

""When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings.""

Doesnt sound like biological incompatibility to me.....

"Prof Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh, though largely convinced by the results, was less surprised that the finches had interbred so extensively.

"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said."

"Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added."

What? Shoot him, quick........

You are literally only talking about 1 distinction that can lead to two groups being classified as different species, and you don't even have it correct. Two different organisms are considered different species if they cannot breed to produce FERTILE offspring.

How did you manage to remember only part of it?

And yet those claimed finches are indeed producing fertile offspring healthier than the originals..... But youll ignore that, right?

Also, correct their classifications? The official classification doesn't match the definition you personally think it should, and thus you arrogantly declare the official species definition wrong. Yours is much more generic and less useful.

And yet there they are, producing fertile offspring. I'll accept that part of the definition too, so what's your problem with ignoring all of it just because they do?

Also, what about bacteria species, and other organisms that don't generally reproduce via breeding with another member of their species? That seems like a pretty useless qualification for species when it comes to them, doesn't it? And you wonder why the same hat won't fit every head equally well, sigh.

We are not discussing bacteria. They are still working that out.

The bacterial species definition in the genomic era | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

"The bacterial species definition, despite its eminent practical significance for identification, diagnosis, quarantine and diversity surveys, remains a very difficult issue to advance. Genomics now offers novel insights into intra-species diversity and the potential for emergence of a more soundly based system."

Except that doesnt seem to be working out either....

Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: insights from the genus Acinetobacter

"In pursuit of this goal, we generated a set of thirteen new draft genome sequences, representing ten species, combined them with other publically available genome sequences and analyzed these 38 strains belonging to the genus. We found that analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequences were not capable of delineating accepted species...... Among rapid distance-based methods, we found average-nucleotide identity (ANI) analyses delivered results consistent with traditional and phylogenetic classifications, whereas gene content based approaches appear to be too strongly influenced by the effects of horizontal gene transfer to agree with previously accepted species."

So when they figure out a definition that fit bacteria I guess we will know....

Pay attention here AV and xianghua....

Or not since they seem to be ignoring the DNA data too because it doesnt fit their beliefs. Yet that same HGT is claimed to be able to prove human descent, lol, just got to love their inconsistencies.....

For once, I'd understand using "kind" over "species" in a statement. This one, since this definitely doesn't match the actual definition of what a species is.


-_- you're the one with a middle school definition of species trying to present it as more valid than a professional level one. You are entirely mistaken about how that label works, and why it isn't necessarily consistent among the various kingdoms of life on Earth. A few plants, some single celled animals, many protists, a few fungi, and all archea and bacteria primarily reproduce asexually. Your incomplete definition of species can't even handle that form of reproduction.

And yet the professionals are ignoring the definition for animals and admitting they dont really know how to classify bacteria since even DNA tests are failing to differentiate between "claimed" species. Probably because almost all of the species tested were actually subspecies......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Questions for you. Please answer:
1. Do you agree that animals in the horse family changed with time, from Eohippus to Equus?
2. Do you agree that where we see incremental changes in design in the horse family, that the DNA would have most likely been similar between the two, with incremental changes in the DNA?
3. Do you agree that the way DNA has been observed to change is by mutations and natural selection (evolution)?
4. Did the DNA change from the Eohippus genome to the Equus genome through a process of evolution? If not, how do you think the new DNA came into existance?
5. If each animal in the horse series did not come about by evolution, what is the method that you propose that it happened. Do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that each new animal popped into existence out of nothing?

No more than I would conclude that the Husky is less advanced than the Chinook, nor that the Husky evolved into the Chinook. Now if you want to propose that fossil A mated with fossil B and produced fossil C, we may indeed consider that hypothesis, as long as you realize dog A when mated to dog B and producing dog C are all still the same species.

So IF Eohippus belongs in the lineup then it is the same species. If it is not the same species it does not belong in the lineup, but where it was originally classified as belonging, to the Hyrax.....

 

[mark kennedy]

What changes over time? Every single fossil species discovered is the same from the youngest frisson found to the oldest...

Oh you mean those imaginary lines drawn to imaginary ancestors to support those imaginary links.

Traits change over time and there can be no serious question about that. Adam names all the living creatures God created in the space of a few hours apparently. From those early parents we get the diversity we see in all it's vast array. Noah touches down on Ararat and from that boat we get all birds, reptiles and mammals in all their vast array. Time line aside, there is no explanation for that except adaptive evolution.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Traits change over time and there can be no serious question about that. Adam names all the living creatures God created in the space of a few hours apparently. From those early parents we get the diversity we see in all it's vast array. Noah touches down on Ararat and from that boat we get all birds, reptiles and mammals in all their vast array. Time line aside, there is no explanation for that except adaptive evolution.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Except you are simply assuming he names everything in a few hours. The Bible remains completely silent on how long Adam remained in the garden.

But yet Adam was able to understand what both mating was for "multiply and fill the earth" and what death was, the punishment for sin.

I don't know what god you worship, but my God would never punish those unable to comprehend the consequences. The only logical conclusion is that Adam observed animals mate, give birth, live out their lives and die while he was in the garden. Now perhaps you might believe you could comprehend what death was if you had never observed it, but I think you would be fooling yourself to believe that.

This made him realize he was alone, the only one of his kind. So much so that he chose to willingly enter death with Eve than to loose her.

What evolution? Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook and variation enters the species. Asian mates with African and produces the Afro-Asian and variation enters the species. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The Husky remained Husky, the Mastiff remained Mastiff. Just as we see in the fossil record as every single one of them remains the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

I don't need the pseudoscience of a Husky evolving into a Chinook without mating with the Mastiff to explain variation within the species. I got direct empirical evidence how it occurs without proposing pseudoscience far in the past. And evolution has nothing to do with it at all.