Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

so what if we will find a car that can produce other cars?(lets say that this car even have DNA). in this case you will conclude design or a natural process?

It is impossible to answer nonsensical questions.

If 2 plus 2 equals 5, how many toes would you have?
If water was H2SO4, what would table salt be?
If peach cat slow bob car friendly watermelon, would stock prices rise?
If Ferraris had babies that grew up to be adult Ferraris, could they evolve on their own?

All of these questions are nonsense. Can we get back to the real world, please?

if you will conclue design then we can conclude the same for nature because nature isnt less complex and have in this case the same traits. if you will not conclude dessign then you will need a great proof that car can evolve naturally.

Cars cannot have babies because they are made of metals and plastics that do not support biological functions. Without such functions, we know of no way for cars to get pregnant, have babies, or grow up to become adult cars. All such questions are gibberish.

Cars cannot have babies, not because they are complex, but because the laws of mechanics does not support biological reproduction.

again: only by a designer. this is the whole design argument. a designer can build a complex system by seconds. something that nature cant do.

Irrelevant.

This thread is not about whether there is a designer. It is about whether there are transitionals. Your arguments for a designer are totally irrelevant as to whether there are transitionals. Can we get back on subject, please?

but again: one part each step will not work. try it by yourself:

Again, one step at a time does work in biology.

After all, how did you grow from a fertilized egg to an adult? One step at a time?

Uh huh, I thought so. Case closed. Biology can advance one step at a time. Mechanical devices can't.

we dont know because we dont have all the d ata we need to conclude this.

Interesting. Suppose you planted an 8" high tomato plant. Later you found it was 24" high, then 48" high, then had buds, then had green tomatoes, then had red tomatoes. Would you have enough information to conclude it had advanced from a seedling to a full tomato plant? Or would you think your neighbor kept going kaboom and put a different tomato plant there every night?

I have enough evidence to conclude that my garden is growing, and that Eohippus advanced to Equus.

but again: i gave you a clear example like the tetrapod transition. and i have showed that in this case we cant conclude any evolution.

No you have not. Your logic went like this:

Cars can't evolve.
Duuuh.
Therefore fish can't evolve.​

If your logic is valid then:

Cars can't swim.
Duuuh.
Therefore fish can't swim.​

would be equally valid. I conclude your logic is invalid.

here is one from the list:

Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” p
p. 352-370,in William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, eds.,
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Ah, this says flagellum and zebras could not evolve? OK, then how does it say the falgellum and zebra came into existence? KABOOM? What is their evidence for KABOOM (or however they think it happened?)

have you forgot the cars example?:

ferrari evolution‏ - חיפוש ב-Google

Nope, I have not forgotten the car example, nor the fact that you ignored the way we all dismantled your argument.

Again: If we find Ford Mustangs in a junkyard and horse fossils in rocks, and arrange them by date, we find a clear progression of bodies. We know that animals bodies differ as a result of DNA differences, and cars differ as a result of drawing differences. Therefore we can conclude that both DNA and car drawings have changed with time. We know DNA is changed by mutation and selection (evolution), while car drawings change by human designers on the drawing board. Therefore we can conclude that evolution and Ford engineering centers most likely exist. But we cannot conclude that Ford Engineers designed horses, or that mutations in DNA changed the Ford Mustang. They are different.

But you will just ignore that paragraph and declare victory, yes?

 

[xianghua]

Do you think that each generation in the series from Eohippus to Equus was produced in a factory like cars?

if they not evolved from each other then they may created at once. it may be similar to a factory prooduct.

 

[Jimmy D]

if they not evolved from each other then they may created at once. it may be similar to a factory prooduct.

A) You know we can date fossils right?

B) Have you got any evidence whatsoever of them being created all at once?

It must be difficult for you to keep trying to present these 'arguments' against empirical facts, kudos to you for that, eventually you're going to have to accept that evolution is the best and only answer we have.

 

[xianghua]

-_- I have to wonder, though, why you think a random human body part would end up fossilized along with these obvious non-human bones in a position suggesting that they belong to the same body.

first, if so we can say the same for this fossil:

Protoavis - Wikipedia


secondly: do we have any evidence that this bone indeed end up in the anatomically correct positions, or its just one out of many other bones and fossils in the area of this discovery?

Incorrect. 1 mammal fossil that's 3.5 billion years old and evolution is DONE. The entire significance of the fossil record is how consistently we find fossil species in order. You can find a fish fossil among mammal fossils, but you will NEVER find a mammal fossil older than the oldest fish fossils.

first: i was talked about evidence for evolution and not about evidence that may falsified evolution. the order itself cant prove anything. we can arrange also cars and trucks in hierarchy. but of course that it doesnt prove evolution. the same go for fossils: any series of fossils cant prove evolution.


about the article i linked too: i actually doesnt read the paper. i only mantion it because the abstract says:

"Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once

but lets ignore this article for this discussion and focus about the problems i have mantion above.

 

[Job 33:6]

For @xianghua

What is your explanation for how some fossils, such as tiktaalik were found? Ill copy my words from another thread...

Aside from Tiktaalik being a transitional with scales, fin rays, and gills (fish like), but also eyes on the top of its head, mobile neck, and lungs (amphibian like), there is also the question for YECs of how tiktaalik was found. The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron). Nobody had explored the rock tiktaalik was found in. Rather, the rock was selected by looking at a geologic map that identified rock of a particular age. That and it was discovered in rock of a particular type formed by freshwater deposits (not deep marine or igneous or terrestrial or metamorphic etc.).

Young Earth Creationists just cant explain something like this.

But old earth creationists, or people who recognized biological evolution and an old earth can, with ease.

 

[Job 33:6]

For @xianghua

What is your explanation for how some fossils, such as tiktaalik were found? Ill copy my words from another thread...

Aside from Tiktaalik being a transitional with scales, fin rays, and gills (fish like), but also eyes on the top of its head, mobile neck, and lungs (amphibian like), there is also the question for YECs of how tiktaalik was found. The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron). Nobody had explored the rock tiktaalik was found in. Rather, the rock was selected by looking at a geologic map that identified rock of a particular age. That and it was discovered in rock of a particular type formed by freshwater deposits (nor marine or igneous or terrestrial or metamorphic etc.).

Young Earth Creationists just cant explain something like this.

But old earth creationists, or people who recognized biological evolution and an old earth can, with ease.

@xianghua
Do YECs think it is simply pure luck or pure chance that tiktaalik was found right where it was predicted to exist?

 

[xianghua]

It is impossible to answer nonsensical questions.

why you cant answer a simple theoretical question? if you will find a car that can produce other cars and made from organic components, you cant conclude design in this case?

This thread is not about whether there is a designer. It is about whether there are transitionals.

so i have showed that those transitional cant prove evolution by showing that trnasitional can be found also in objects that not evolved.

Again, one step at a time does work in biology.

After all, how did you grow from a fertilized egg to an adult? One step at a time?

Uh huh, I thought so. Case closed. Biology can advance one step at a time. Mechanical devices can't.

are you kidding me? we are talking about evolution of complex system and you gave a system that already exist amd make the human body.

I have enough evidence to conclude that my garden is growing, and that Eohippus advanced to Equus.

so we can also believe by the same logic that those different cars evolved from each other:

ferrari evolution‏ - חיפוש ב-Google

the tomato example is different because we know that tomato can grow. but we dont have any evidence that a fish or an ape can evolve into something completely different. as we have no evidence that a car can evolve into something that it isnt a car.

Ah, this says flagellum and zebras could not evolve? OK, then how does it say the falgellum and zebra came into existence? KABOOM? What is their evidence for KABOOM (or however they think it happened?)

i dont care. you ask for a scientific papers that show that the flagellum cant evolve. so i bring those papers. period.



Nope, I have not forgotten the car example, nor the fact that you ignored the way we all dismantled your argument.

Again: If we find Ford Mustangs in a junkyard and horse fossils in rocks, and arrange them by date, we find a clear progression of bodies. We know that animals bodies differ as a result of DNA differences, and cars differ as a result of drawing differences. Therefore we can conclude that both DNA and car drawings have changed with time. We know DNA is changed by mutation and selection (evolution), while car drawings change by human designers on the drawing board. Therefore we can conclude that evolution and Ford engineering centers most likely exist. [/QUOTE]

what is the different if those two can add changes and keep them?

in the next post i will just focus in two points because we just back again into the strating point and its very boring.

 

[xianghua]

For The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron).

its actually a fail prediction. are you aware about the fact that a tetrapod tracks appeared before eusthenopteron and tiktaalik together?:

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

look at this figure. this is a fail prediction of the evolution theory.

and by the way: the design model also predict a transitional fossils. like we found in objects that were designed.[/user]

 

[Job 33:6]

its actually a fail prediction. [/user]

No, it wasn't a failed prediction, as tiktaalik was found as it was predicted. A bunny rabbit wasn't found, an elephant wasn't found, tiktaalik was found...as predicted, right where it was predicted to be.

The planet is massive, there are rocks everywhere. What are the odds that tiktaalik was found just as predicted all the way up in the middle of nowhere in Canada? It was a successful prediction made through an understanding of the fossil succession, biological evolution and an old earth.

 

[Job 33:6]

The intellectual dishonesty of young earthers amazes me sometimes. Claims that the discovery of tiktaalik was a failed prediction...if I was a failed prediction, tiktaalik would not have been found. Smh.

 

[xianghua]

No, it wasn't a failed prediction, as tiktaalik was found as it was predicted.

how if the tiktaalik appeared after the first tetrapod? tiktaalik prediced to be after tetrapods or before?

 

[Job 33:6]

how if the tiktaalik appeared after the first tetrapod? tiktaalik prediced to be after tetrapods or before?

Because it was predicted in reference to predecessors and post existing tetrapods. Do you think it was just pure random chance that they found tiktaalik out in the middle of nowhere in Canada in a random rock?

 

[Job 33:6]

Aside from Tiktaalik being a transitional with scales, fin rays, and gills (fish like), but also eyes on the top of its head, mobile neck, and lungs (amphibian like), there is also the question for YECs of how tiktaalik was found. The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron). Nobody had explored the rock tiktaalik was found in. Rather, the rock was selected by looking at a geologic map that identified rock of a particular age. That and it was discovered in rock of a particular type formed by freshwater deposits (not deep marine or igneous or terrestrial or metamorphic etc.).

Young Earth Creationists just cant explain something like this.

But old earth creationists, or people who recognized biological evolution and an old earth can, with ease.

 

[AV1611VET]

Claims that the discovery of tiktaalik was a failed prediction...

Wow.

Tiktaalik was found right where it was predicted to be found.

Like that's some kind of plus for evolution.

It was found right where the Inuits fish for "burbots" daily.

Guess what?

I found horses ... right where people said they were using saddles!

I guess that verifies evolution, doesn't it?

And off the record, but equally obnoxious, dig this:

The word "Inuktitut" means "like a person!"

Maybe one of these days, these "persons" will be elevated to the status of human being?

Chalk up another one for Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races!

 

[Job 33:6]

Wow.

Tiktaalik was found right where it was predicted to be found.

Like that's some kind of plus for evolution.

It was found right where the Inuits fish for "burbots" daily.

Guess what?

I found horses ... right where people said they were using saddles!

I guess that verifies evolution, doesn't it?

And off the record, but equally obnoxious, dig this:

The word "Inuktitut" means "like a person!"

Maybe one of these days, these "persons" will be elevated to the status of human being?

Chalk up another one for Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races!

As for the rock type? As for the specific locality of Devonian fossils? Fish fossils can be found in many many places, but this rock is very specific rock of a very specific type and it is located in a very specific place.

Perhaps you simply do not understand as you are not familiar with lacustrine deposits or the specific formations of the Devonian found throughout the world.

 

[Job 33:6]

As for the rock type? As for the specific locality of Devonian fossils? Fish fossils can be found in many many places, but this rock is very specific rock of a very specific type and it is located in a very specific place.

Perhaps you simply do not understand as you are not familiar with lacustrine deposits or the specific formations of the Devonian found throughout the world.

If you really think that you could find your own tiktaalik, or something comparable simply by looking at where people catch fish...good luck. The truth is, it is far more complex than that. there are rocks all over earth and people fish in many places, but this, is just too specific.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fish fossils can be found in many many places, but this rock is very specific rock of a very specific type and it is located in a very specific place.

Is that why it took them five years to find it?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you really think that you could find your own tiktaalik, or something comparable simply by looking at where people catch fish...good luck.

I'm not gonna waste five years of my life looking for some fish that looks like a pickle spear on steroids -- even if you were to sponsor me.

Eventually an Inuit would probably come up to me and ask me what I'm doing, traipsing around and tearing up his land.

And when I show him a picture (drawing) of what I'm looking for, he'd probably say, "Why didn't you just ask us? We've been eating those things for centuries! Here, they're over here."

 

[Job 33:6]

Is that why it took them five years to find it?

You think 5 years is long? When you have an entire planet of rock and fossils? Do you ever go out looking for fossils? I know people who spend decade's looking for such a thing. I know guys who have been looking at formations for 20-30 or even 40+ years, and haven't been able to find something so specific as tiktaalik.

And for the researchers who found tiktaalik, to look at a map of the entire world, to grab a helicopter and to fly to the middle of nowhere in Canada, and to find tiktaalik in a matter of a handful of trips you could count with your fingers...

That is impressive.

And ill tell you, no global flood of density sorting or chaos, would ever allow for such a prediction and such an efficient search and discovery to be made.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, delays they ran into weren't because they were looking in the wrong formation, it was because they had to find lacustrine layers within the specific formation they were at.