Are there transitional fossils?

[pshun2404]

Evolution doesn't involve 'cross-overs' of one type into another, just sequential modifications into new species. After a lot of changes, the distant descendant species may look very different from the ancestor species.

I understand the idea Frum, only it never happened. No fish ever even with 20000 little changes over 50000 generations ever became a reptile! Fish varieties abundant but not a amphibian. If so show some examples.

 

[Astrophile]

See National Geographic for proof of way older than Tik Tetrapod landwalkers

Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution

Since they already existed Tik was not in between at all. Dawkins was wrong (as he is with so many things) Tik split nothing and does not represent a Transition from fish to Tetras at all.

According to the article 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', by Spencer G. Lucas (2015), Ichnos, 22:3-4, 136-154, http://www.researchgate.net/publica...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints , the Zachelmie 'tracks' are probably not tetrapod tracks at all. In the abstract the author says,

The supposed tetrapod tracks from the Middle Devonian of the Zachelmie quarry, Poland, fail the criteria for identification as Devonian tetrapod tracks. Indeed, no convincing case has been made that the Zachelmie structures are tetrapod tracks. Instead, they are reinterpreted as fish nests/feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus).

The evidence for this reinterpretation is presented in detail on pages 147-150 of the paper.

I have already drawn attention to this paper somewhere else in this forum, so you shouldn't be citing the National Geographic article as if its conclusions were well-established facts.

 

[pshun2404]

But I didn't say it walked on land (although it may have done for all I know) I don't know what your argument is here.

Glad to hear it.

You put such a negative spin on it though, seems a bit unnecessary.

"Real meaning"? Is that the one used frequently in scientific discourse or the one you prefer? It sounds like you believe transitional = missing link, and maybe it does to you and your creationist cousins over at AIG or whatever, but that's not how scientists define it.

There you go again, Tik is not the"missing link", it is representative of the split.

Oh the irony! I feel feint!

You are attempting to redefine "transitional" to the point it where it would be an impossible standard to meet.

Right, right, just a fish. A fish with wrists.

Anyway, I'm clocking off until Monday.... have a good weekend!

Transitional: an object or agent of transition, movement , passage or change from one position, stage, state to another ; of or relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition.

Cambridge Oxford unabridged on Transitional describes it as belonging or relating to a change, or the process of change, from one form or type to another.

My language is called English, and this IS the meaning of the term. Not MY definition, THE definition. However, you can continue to pretend YOUR definition is correct, since the idea it pretended to define by re-definition is all about pretend.

And wrists? Really? Ah-ha-ha-ha!!!!! AAhhh=ha-ha! Now that is brainwashing my friend...Tik has no such thing (remember this is by the people that say fins are hands...ah-ha-ha)...again you have to look at the actual bones we found!

 

[pshun2404]

According to the article 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', by Spencer G. Lucas (2015), Ichnos, 22:3-4, 136-154, http://www.researchgate.net/publica...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints , the Zachelmie 'tracks' are probably not tetrapod tracks at all. In the abstract the author says,

The evidence for this reinterpretation is presented in detail on pages 147-150 of the paper.

I have already drawn attention to this paper somewhere else in this forum, so you shouldn't be citing the National Geographic article as if its conclusions were well-established facts.

Yeah I read that. He's a bozo...some of the prints have toe or claw marks...he is trying to discredit the find because it rocks the faulty Tik conclusion...

You do know that all it really does is push back the timeline for the alleged event?
But who wants to admit the obvious that Tik isn't it?

 

[Astrophile]

does evolution also predicted this one?:


| Biology Letters


""Any acrodontan—let alone an advanced agamid—in the Triassic is thus highly unexpected in the light of recent studies."


"It is extremely unlikely that Tikiguania is an advanced agamid from the Triassic, and that the draconine jaw ‘morphotype’ has persisted largely unchanged for 216 Myr."

"Tikiguania estesi is widely accepted to be the earliest member of Squamata, the reptile group that includes lizards and snakes. It is based on a lower jaw from the Late Triassic of India"


"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade"

Why didn't you quote the following one and a half sentences of the abstract?

it is much more conceivable that Tikiguania is a Quaternary or Late Tertiary agamid that was preserved in sediments derived from the Triassic beds that have a broad superficial exposure. This removes the only fossil evidence for lizards in the Triassic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Transitional: an object or agent of transition, movement , passage or change from one position, stage, state to another ; of or relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition.

Cambridge Oxford unabridged on Transitional describes it as belonging or relating to a change, or the process of change, from one form or type to another.

My language is called English, and this IS the meaning of the term. Not MY definition, THE definition. However, you can continue to pretend YOUR definition is correct, since the idea it pretended to define by re-definition is all about pretend.

Ah, back to semantics. How can arguments from semantics ever resolve anything?

We have explained to you multiple times what scientists mean when they use words like "transitional" and "species".

Please understand that science differs from Biblical theology. In Biblical theology one starts with the words and attempts to uncover the concept they convey. In science, one starts with an experimentally determined concept, and converts that concept into words. In Biblical theology, one has little choice but to argue about the meaning of the words in order to advance knowledge. But in science we learn the concepts first, and use words to convey what we learn. If we don't understand the words written by others, we ask people what they mean, or we repeat the experiments. We don't begin with the inspired words, and then do endless parsing of words to find the meaning.

For instance, you have argued endlessly about the definition of the word "species", especially as it applies to the many Finches on the Galapgos. Why? What does any of that matter? When scientists say that one species of finch flew to the islands and there evolved into 15 or so species, they are expressing a concept. And interestingly, you agree with the concept as long as we used wording that you accept. Compare the two statements below:

1. One species of finch flew to the islands and there evolved into 15 or more species.

2. One group of finches flew to the islands and there changed into 15 or more varieties.
​

Now as far as I can tell you agree with the second and vehemently deny the first, even though they basically mean the same thing when you allow words to mean what scientists mean when they say them. But you have your own special dialect, so when I try to convey a message like sentence 1 above, you insist I need to convert it to your dialect and instead say sentence 2.

The important thing is the meaning. If I have to interpret everything scientists say into your dialect to communicate with you, I can do it, but it becomes irritating to work through endless repetitions to find out the dialect you accept.

The important thing is that we agree that birds changed into many differing forms during the millions of years that birds existed.

Likewise with transitionals. When scientists speak of transitional fossils, they do not mean the actual ancestor. They mean animals that are likely closely related to the true ancestor, animals that are representative of the true ancestor, animals that have characteristics that the true ancestor likely had.

I think in your dialog you would use "cousin species representative of a transitional ancestor" where scientists say "transitional". So when speaking to you I will say "cousin species representative of a transitional ancestor" (CSRTA) where scientists say "transitional".

​

 

[doubtingmerle]

...
Consider Ambulocetus displayed here (I mean REALLY LOOK)...note all we really have is in black....what the did to it to make it appear an understandable creature that fits the "belief" is all the white areas (over 90% fiction)...they made it up Jim! They made it up!

You have that completely backwards. Read the caption.

The white represents what was found in this particular specimen. What about the black? Is that wild guesses? No. Read the caption. The black was added in based on other specimens. So what we have are many specimens, each of which tell part of the story. One particular specimen tells nearly the whole story of that skeleton, showing everything found in white above.

So this sure looks like a transitional (CSRTA in your dialect) to me.

 

[pshun2404]

You have that completely backwards. Read the caption.

The white represents what was found in this particular specimen. What about the black? Is that wild guesses? No. Read the caption. The black was added in based on other specimens. So what we have are many specimens, each of which tell part of the story. One particular specimen tells nearly the whole story of that skeleton, showing everything found in white above.

So this sure looks like a transitional (CSRTA in your dialect) to me.

You are right. I stand corrected on this example. Unfortunately when I looked for photos of the original fossils for Kutchicetus I found many fine examples (which showed the drastic contrivance in what we see in the usual National History museum) but none could be transported into the post, only those of the assembled and added to versions could be inserted.

So yes I was apparently incorrect in this post as you pointed out, but still they do not demonstrate a transitional form (just variety). As for your 1. and 2. finch story, I am fine with both not just 2. This also shows that speciation produces variety.

And as for your stock way around changing the meaning of terms...IMO there is o excuse. Transitional means transitional and there are no examples, yet it is believed (at least it certainly was by me) and vehemently defended (which I also did for decades) that what transitional forms are used to imply is far more than variety demonstrated by speciation.

 

[pshun2404]

The is what we found for Kutchicetus. This is a drawing of all the individual bones. Sadly no picture of the bones themselves can be inserted. But still we can see how sparse the surviving bones are compared to the what we see in the museum and textbook models.

 

[USincognito]

Of course all dog varieties came from a few early types like Grey Wolf but not from reptiles!

That's your assumption based on your presuppositions and worldview. You have no evidence to support this speculation.

And yes all varieties of birds came from a few types of early avians but not reptiles!

Indeed. Non-avian dinosaurs did not evolve directly from a basal reptile or even a basal archosaur, but from theropod dinosaurs. The remain, as with all extant taxa, what their ancestors were so birds are still theropods, archosaurs and amniotes.

I know it is conviction without real proof. And yes they do say teach it as truth, you are correct. But again I challenge you to show a single such transformation.

It would be really nice if Creationists could learn what science is, and is not, and what evolution proposes, and does not, before trying to critique it.

 

[USincognito]

First off this summation indicates it did in fact NOT walk up on land, and also that it lived in water.

Holy Cow! You mean a fish to land transtional in the earliest stages of that transition would have been still aquatic? That's impossible? Everyone knows that marine to terrestrial transition happened when a fish flopped onto the water, and layed eggs with fry that had legs and lungs and walked away from their nest in one generation.

It is said that further that paleontologists surmise that it probably lived in shallow, weed-choked swamps, the legs having evolved for some other purpose than walking on land (legs being assumption #1, and that they “evolved” being assumption #2).

Oh no! Scientists making provisional statements about evidence based conclusions instead of averring an eternal and unchanging TRVTH ™? (wailing and moaning) How can we trust anything they say. Do we even know that Dr. Phil is a real doctor?

Now if one really looks at the language (surmise? probably? Interpreted as?), nothing found actually indicates they ever did.

Reads to me like someone doesn't understand how science works.

But in fact he lied! It does not fall in between fish and land walking tetrapods at all because both already existed. But what does reality have to do with it?

What makes you think that the existence of fish (or more specifically sarcopterygians) makes the fact that Tiktaalik is a tetrapod tranistional (from fish) a "lie"? And no, the Polish tracks have not been conclusively identified nor would their being tetrpod in origin make Tiktaalik being a transitional a "lie" either. It seems you don't comprehend the difference between transitional and ancestral.

 

[doubtingmerle]

According to the article 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', by Spencer G. Lucas (2015), Ichnos, 22:3-4, 136-154, http://www.researchgate.net/publica...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints , the Zachelmie 'tracks' are probably not tetrapod tracks at all. In the abstract the author says,



The evidence for this reinterpretation is presented in detail on pages 147-150 of the paper.

I have already drawn attention to this paper somewhere else in this forum, so you shouldn't be citing the National Geographic article as if its conclusions were well-established facts.

Thanks for sharing this. I've had a hunch that we would find this, that the early "tetrapod tracks" were not really tracks. In the meantime I had to do what scientists do, accept the new finding tentatively and see how it works in with existing findings, while studying more to clarify the apparent discrepancy. I will find time to read the whole article.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Fish varieties abundant but not a amphibian. If so show some examples.

Per your request:

 

[doubtingmerle]

i only said that any spinning motor is evidence for design. as far as we know.

No sir, this is special pleading. You cannot say that you get to use an argument only when you choose, and get to ignore an argument with the same logic if you choose not to.

Electric motors are different from flagellum.

One has wires, one doesn't.
One is made in factories, one isn't.
One is made by a designer, one isn't.​

If your argument is true that since you made an analogy, then things about electric motors apply to flagellum, then flagellum have wires and are made in factories. I conclude your argument is not true.

​

complex systems like flagellum, that need several parts to be functional.

... , parts that are quite similar to other parts in similar bacteria.

The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.


What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins. [source]​

you cant compare it with mutations that make a new species of finch.

But I just did.

if you wnat to move from one kind to another, you cant do it stepwise.

If you want to move from a Merychippus to a Zebra you can't do it by kaboom, there is a zebra.

If you want to move to a bacteria with a flagellum, you can't do it by kaboom, there is a bacteria with a flagellum. If you think you can, prove it.

so evolution cant make this transition.

Kaboom cannot make the transition to flagellum. Evolution can. See Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex .

agree.
​

OK, so science is based on scientists convincing other scientists, winning peer review, and winning support from others.

Should you happen to prove that I am uninformed about a fact of science, that does not prove your case as you stated. That only proves I don't know something. If you want to make your case, then you must write an article that passes scientific review. Outwitting me does not count as victory.

You would need to convince scientists with peer reviewed articles.

not at all. any variations in the creature cant consider as evolution. because its basically the same creature (like wolf vs dog).

Sorry, to get from a wolf to a poodle required evolution. Small scale yes, but definitely evolution.

actually its zero evidence for evolution.

Actually no, 29.

Now please show me your evidence for kaboom.

but its a fact that a spinning motor nened a designer.

Electric motors need copper wires and a designer. If everything that is true about electric motors has to be true about flagellum, then flagellum have electric wires.

so we have a belief vs a fact. and you also believe in a natural evolution. so it make it even worse.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

yes. 1) we know that a motor need a d esigner and 2) we know that it cant evolve stepwise. so the only logical conclusion is that this motor created at once.

Do you know it can come into existence by your method--kaboom? I have evidence for my method.

as?

...as Eohippus had multiple toes, no real hooves, different teeth and diet, was much smaller than modern horses, etc.

first: its not a rhino (it doesnt have even horn). secondly: even your own example isnt a missing link:

New fossils are no "missing link"

"So, why then, if cambaytheres are so closely related to rhinos and horses, can't we call them a "missing link?" Because of their position on the Tree of Life. As shown below, if cambaytheres were a "missing link," it would imply that they are part of the ancestral lineage of either horses or rhinos and "link" these two animals to one another. Neither are cambaytheres the common ancestor of horses and rhinos. In fact, cambaytheres are not part of the ancestral lineage of rhinos or horses at all; they are simply close relatives of those ancestors"

Read that article. It explains what we mean by transitional.

If Eohippus is a horse, then how can you explain that it is very close to such creatures that are not horses?

 

[xianghua]

No sir, this is special pleading. You cannot say that you get to use an argument only when you choose, and get to ignore an argument with the same logic if you choose not to.

Electric motors are different from flagellum.

One has wires, one doesn't.
One is made in factories, one isn't.
One is made by a designer, one isn't.​

so what? they both are still spinning motors. we know that a spinning motor (from any kind) need a designer. you believe that some of them can evolve? ok. but you will need a great proof to that claim. a proof that you still doenst showed here.

​

What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

not realy. first: those proteins are not identical but similar. so they arent the same proteins. secondly: even if they was identical they exist in many species and not just one. so you cant mix several proteins from many species to form a flagellum in one species. 3) even if you can mix all those parts what is the chance to mix about 4-5 parts in one milion bases genome to form a minimal flalgellum? again as i said: you need hard evidence to prove that a motor dont need a designer. and you cant bring such an evidence.


​

If you want to move to a bacteria with a flagellum, you can't do it by kaboom, there is a bacteria with a flagellum. If you think you can, prove it.

i dont need to prove that a motor or a car or a robot need a designer. you are the one that need to prove otherise. and i already showed that there is no stepwise from non flafellum to flagellum. your try (actually new scientist try)to prove otherwise failed because the reasons above.

You would need to convince scientists with peer reviewed articles.

i dont need to convince anyone that a motor is evidence for design. it's a fact. maybe all those scientists just arent aware about those evidences. and by the way: the majority of scientists believe in a designer:

Scientists and Belief

Sorry, to get from a wolf to a poodle required evolution. Small scale yes, but definitely evolution.

only if you consider any change as evolution. if so you can say that even a zit in the
forehead is evidence for evolution.

Actually no, 29.

that non of them hold water. as you can see above.



​

Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

no. small changes and variation is a fact. big changes that c an change a fish into a human is a belief.

...as Eohippus had multiple toes, no real hooves, different teeth and diet, was much smaller than modern horses, etc.

maybe this kind of evolution is possible and maybe not. those changes arent clear enough to know if they are possible stepwise or not. smaller size for instance can be see also among dogs and horses. so this trait is possible even a ccording to the design model. why you are keep bring this non-clear exmaple? what about the fish transition? this is much more clear example that i can say for sure that it's impossible by design model to be the same kind.

If Eohippus is a horse, then how can you explain that it is very close to such creatures that are not horses?

on the same logic that two cars from the same company can be very similar- a common designer.

 

[pshun2404]

That's your assumption based on your presuppositions and worldview. You have no evidence to support this speculation.

Indeed. Non-avian dinosaurs did not evolve directly from a basal reptile or even a basal archosaur, but from theropod dinosaurs. The remain, as with all extant taxa, what their ancestors were so birds are still theropods, archosaurs and amniotes.

It would be really nice if Creationists could learn what science is, and is not, and what evolution proposes, and does not, before trying to critique it.

First it is a response to YOUR presuppositional worldview...

Second...nice story only it is illogical to assume that because something precedes another in time that the former caused or became the latter (it is an irrational assumption...which by the way is without proof just conjecture and conjectural consensus)...

And third I do know what science is and love science but I am intelligent enough that the previous "shaping" of my opinion is no longer a limitation. I am able to separate what we actually have from what we are told these things mean. Apparently you cannot at this point.

Besides evolution only being a tiny section of what science is and does (almost everything for your camp) and occupies only a fraction of science done and things discovered and applied, evolution is real but all that evoilutionists say is not

 

[pshun2404]

Per your request:

A really lovely set of artistic fiction I must admit still no fish becoming amphibians...it is still an assumption used to explain the already accepted notion.

 

[pshun2404]

Holy Cow! You mean a fish to land transtional in the earliest stages of that transition would have been still aquatic? That's impossible? Everyone knows that marine to terrestrial transition happened when a fish flopped onto the water, and layed eggs with fry that had legs and lungs and walked away from their nest in one generation.



Oh no! Scientists making provisional statements about evidence based conclusions instead of averring an eternal and unchanging TRVTH ™? (wailing and moaning) How can we trust anything they say. Do we even know that Dr. Phil is a real doctor?

What makes you think that the existence of fish (or more specifically sarcopterygians) makes the fact that Tiktaalik is a tetrapod tranistional (from fish) a "lie"? And no, the Polish tracks have not been conclusively identified nor would their being tetrpod in origin make Tiktaalik being a transitional a "lie" either. It seems you don't comprehend the difference between transitional and ancestral.

"Everyone knows that marine to terrestrial transition happened "

No they assume it based on the story told and taught from a century ago and then INTERPRET evidence to fit the hypothesis instead of the other way around.

"Reads to me like someone doesn't understand how science works."

Wrong again (another assumption on your part)! It reads like someone who has questions about what some scientists tell us these things mean.

"you don't comprehend the difference between transitional and ancestral"

Third assumptive error. I certainly do understand the difference.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so what? they both are still spinning motors. we know that a spinning motor (from any kind) need a designer.
​

Are you aware that repeating a statement over and over does not make it true?

We absolutely do not know for sure that all powered spinning device such as a flagellum needs a designer. If you think it is true, make an attempt to argue for it.

Here is a simple quiz for you. Suppose I show you a couple of 480 VAC GE motors, each totally enclosed fan cooled, each requiring a designer. Ok, based on that, what of the following can we conclude:

a) all motors including flagellum are made by GE.
b) all motors including flagellum are 480 VAC
c) all motors including flagellum are totally enclosed fan cooled.
d) all motors including flagellum require a designer.
e) none of the above​

The correct answer is e. If you think a different answer is the correct one, please attempt to argue for it.

not realy. first: those proteins are not identical but similar. so they arent the same proteins.

Of course not. The flagellum evolved years ago. The point is that proteins very close to what the flagellum uses would have been available.

secondly: even if they was identical they exist in many species and not just one. so you cant mix several proteins from many species to form a flagellum in one species.

Again, millions of years ago, bacteria would have been different. There is nothing that would have prevented some bacteria back then from having proteins close to flagellum protein.

3) even if you can mix all those parts what is the chance to mix about 4-5 parts in one milion bases genome to form a minimal flalgellum?

What are the odds that the trillions upon trillions of proteins needed to form the bacteria from scratch just happened to combine, as per your kaboom hypothesis?

Your kaboom hypothesis is far less likely than mine, requiring far more proteins to be made just right.

If the odds are against my view, then they are against your view by many orders of magnitude more, yes?

i dont need to prove that a motor... need a designer.

Yes. You. Do.

If you are going to make the claim that the flagellum motor needs a designer, then you need to prove it needs a designer.

You are not allowed to make things up without supporting them with sound reasoning.

maybe all those scientists just arent aware about those evidences.

Then write a peer reviewed article that proves them wrong.

and by the way: the majority of scientists believe in a designer:

Scientists and Belief

So? Most scientists also believe in evolution.

For most scientists, the designer they believe in does not design animals by the kaboom method. You conveniently forgot to mention that. Why?

only if you consider any change as evolution. if so you can say that even a zit in the
forehead is evidence for evolution.

Please. To get from a wolf to a poodle you need mutations and selection. That is evolution. To grow a zit does not require evolution.
​

maybe this kind of evolution is possible and maybe not. those changes arent clear enough to know if they are possible stepwise or not. smaller size for instance can be see also among dogs and horses. so this trait is possible even a ccording to the design model. why you are keep bring this non-clear exmaple?

I bring up horse evolution because it is readily documented evolution. And you agree that the Eohippus at least could have evolved into the horse and zebra, yes? I bring it up because that is one example of evolution on which we are close to agreement.

what about the fish transition? this is much more clear example that i can say for sure that it's impossible by design model to be the same kind.

How do you know for sure a fish cannot evolve into an amhibian, other than the fact that you have said it over and over?

on the same logic that two cars from the same company can be very similar- a common designer.

This has nothing to do with what I was saying.

The point is that, if you can believe Eohipus could have changed into a horse in 50 million years, and believe something very close to Eohippus could have evolved into a rhino in 50 million years, then why cannot those two ancestors have a common ancestor, and thus we would find that the horse is related to the rhino?

 

[pshun2404]

"If you can believe" (imagine) "something very close to" (that we can imagine) "could have" (but maybe not) "thus we find" (the hypothesis based assumptive conclusion)...finally some honesty.

This is it...this is the substance (fiction)