Are there transitional fossils?

[AV1611VET]

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.

Here's something you can harp on and call the authors "uneducated liars," if you want to:

Tiktaalik roseae: A Fishy Missing Link

 

[Job 33:6]

Here's something you can harp on and call the authors "uneducated liars," if you want to:

Tiktaalik roseae: A Fishy Missing Link

So you cant respond and you go on to post random links? Are you unable to speak for yourself? Unable to give an adequate response? Why cant you see your own intellectual dishonesty?

As Ken Miller once said, one side argues with authentic evidence and in this case, prediction, the other side simply shrugs their shoulders in denial.

 

[Job 33:6]

So you cant respond and you go on to post random links? Are you unable to speak for yourself? Unable to give an adequate response? Why cant you see your own dishonesty?

As Ken Miller once said, one side argues with authentic evidence and in this case, prediction, the other side simply shrugs their shoulders in denial.

And with that, ill go ahead and put you on ignore. You have no interest in Gods truth, just your truth. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[pshun2404]

So you cant respond and you go on to post random links? Are you unable to speak for yourself? Unable to give an adequate response? Why cant you see your own intellectual dishonesty?

As Ken Miller once said, one side argues with authentic evidence and in this case, prediction, the other side simply shrugs their shoulders in denial.

So is "prediction" authentic evidence in your view?

 

[xianghua]

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

have you heard about the mudskipper?:

Mudskipper - Wikipedia

or what about the ogcocephalus?:

Ogcocephalus - Wikipedia

or this walking shark?:

Epaulette shark - Wikipedia

 

[xianghua]

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?

if it is a prediction how is that the first tetrapod appeared before the tiktaalik? its like saying that evolution predict that the first human will appear before the first ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

It was a very early tetrapod and not necessarily the first. It was found by using a combination of knowledge of geology and the theory of evolution which predicted that that particular time was when the first tetrapods (please note the plural) first evolved.

By the way, when more advanced tetrapods evolved it does not mean that more basal ones, such as Tiktaalik had to immediately die. Or in other words, just because Americans came from Europeans does not mean that Europeans had to instantly die.

 

[Job 33:6]

if it is a prediction how is that the first tetrapod appeared before the tiktaalik? its like saying that evolution predict that the first human will appear before the first ape.

read subduction zones response as well as this one. Fact of the matter is, the tetrapod tracks youre referring to are right in the ball park, found with other fossils of the fish to amphibian sequence in the late Devonian. This further is still independent of the prediction made in reference to tetrapod like fish and fish like tetrapods found before and after tiktaalik in the fossil sequence.

Bottom line is, you have no explanation for the prediction made. You have no explanation for how such a fossil, morphologically predicted, could be found in predicted layers of a predicted formation, at a predicted formation at a predicted locality in the middle of nowheresville Canada. But those who are aware of the fossil succession and uniformitarian geology, do. Hence how the prediction was made.

Your attempts in responding to this revolve around tetrapod tracks, also found in the late Devonian. While not immediately predicted, these tracks are still very much in line with the fossil succession predicted in uniformitarian geology and biological evolution. Youre trying to use evidence for the fossil succession against it, without recognizing that youre digging your own grave, by recognizing the existence of those tracks in the late Devonian, which are the very same tracks that we have been trying to tell you exist, all along.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

Protoavis - Wikipedia

That situation is a bit different from the fossil finds of Lucy's species and your suggestion that the foot found with them could be from our species. After all, we have a multitude of fossils for Lucy's species, but there appears to be only 1 for Protoavis. The Protoavis bones were collected from a mass of mixed bones (likely the result of mass death from a local flood) thus what bones belong to what species can be easily mixed up. Additionally, this anatomy looks cartoonish https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Protoavis_paratype_skeletal.png . The "wing" looks entirely wrong for a species originally proposed to be an ancient bird or bird ancestor. I wish I could find a better image of this fossil, but I can't seem to find any. The fossils were also crushed into pieces before being stuck back together in that position, and the bones that weren't crumbled mostly aren't birdlike (with the skull being the closest to having avian features).

Basically put, Protoavis is the absolute worse case scenario for reconstructing skeletons and is not representative of the fossils found from Lucy's species.

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?

What I was referring to is that the bones of the foot were found with the body they belong to. Though, to be extremely blunt, the hip ALONE is enough to confirm upright walking in this species. There are no quadruped mammals with hips like that, for reasons of structural integrity.

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.

I never said that the fossil record was proof of evolution, or even that it was particularly strong evidence for it. However, it's relevance to the theory remains in the consistent order. Your constant, incorrect assertion that the order of the fossil record is irrelevant to evolution annoys me. You ignore and choose not to address my statements about how it could be used to disprove evolution quite easily, while continuing to assert that the fossils could be in any order and it would still somehow serve as evidence for evolution. I'll quit commenting on your incorrect assertion when you stop making it, or finally decide to address the points I have made about it honestly.

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.

-_- read your sources next time rather than cherry pick ones you think support your position.

 

[Job 33:6]

So is "prediction" authentic evidence in your view?

Would you like to tell me how the prediction was made if not by the explanatory power of uniformitarian geology, the fossil succesion and biological evolution?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Heliocentrism was equally incorrect and eventually replaced the Ptolemaic system and yes a bit of fraud has occurred in all areas (but no where compared to this idea since the very beginning) and I am proud to admit (and did) that it is scientists themselves that finally debunk them.

My point stands: science only gets political when politics stands in its way.

But selective exclusion, pouring new meaning into commonly understood terms, the use of image imprinting, and more, are clearly indicative of a propaganda campaign (the researchers themselves are not to blame).

-_- the definition of what a species is has changed over time to make the categorization more useful and accurate to reality. That's the entire point of scientific progress. I'm sorry that the precise definition of species isn't as cut and dry as you were taught in high school, but that's a personal problem, not science's problem.

The racist and sexist roots are undeniable.

Then it should be really easy for you demonstrate beyond an assertion.

Long before Evolution was proven true it was to be treated as if it were in academic circles.

The initial reaction to evolution was outrage from the scientific community. It was loathed. This is why the Scopes trial in the US occurred in 1925. That's about 66 years AFTER Origin of Species was published.

There is far too much that relies on interpreting the data according to the theory (and I have shown some of these instances here and elsewhere)

So sayeth you, in your personal opinion. That species change over time is the observation, and evolution is an explanation of the process. However, your actual contention is likely with the observation itself rather than the theory that explains WHY and HOW it happens. That sounds like a personal problem to me, because that observation is not contestable.

Remember Ota Benga (Anthropologists) and Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger (Eugenics) for starters...the textbook defended by Clarence Darrow (a racist rag)...? Again yes it was defeated by scientists as well (and I commend them) but only after generations had been brainwashed, the effects of which lingered for decades. Today if you dissent from the mantra you can fail your courses, be discredited in your field, lose your position in institutes of higher learning, groups and ethnicities are deemed more or less primitive, more or less evolved, and more.

Adolph Hitler banned evolution in classrooms and Origin of Species was on his burn list. I guarantee that YOU have a better understanding of evolution than Hitler did. Furthermore, Hitler is not, nor ever has been, the norm, genocides predate evolution (they even are mentioned in the bible).

Clarence Darrow was a lawyer, and his only connection to evolution is that he was on the side of "teach evolution in schools" during the Scopes trial. His upbringing and career otherwise had nothing to do with evolution. Also, he died in 1938, of course he was racist. Racism predates evolution.

Margaret Sanger has no connections with evolution at all, and she worked with communities of different races, so despite the time period she lived in, I'm not sure she was actually racist. I'm not shocked that you take issue with a person that founded organizations that eventually formed into Planned Parenthood, but there is not one bit of historical evidence connecting her to evolution at all. Additionally, plenty of people that are evolution supporters (as well as plenty of atheists) are pro-life. For example, Christopher Hitchens was very much pro-life.

Seriously, people were racist garbage long before evolution was a thing, and were even trying to abuse scientific studies to "demonstrate" that their race was superior to all others, even if it was with something as inane as the distance between the chin and belly button (I wish I was kidding). This was especially prominent in Europe for a while. Never quite caught on in other places, perhaps because having kids with people of other nationalities wasn't quite as taboo. They called the Irish primitive because they often didn't wear undergarments (which many couldn't afford).

 

[doubtingmerle]

why you cant answer a simple theoretical question?

Once again, I cannot answer questions that do not make sense to me.

Let me illustrate by asking you a nonsense question. Does a thingamabadaddle need a designer? How do you know? Please answer my nonsense question before I answer your nonsense question.

I cannot answer what I do not understand.

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

What are you talking about? Something like a horse? If so, then no, I don't think things like horses need a designer.

Or you talking about a robotic machine shop on wheels that repairs itself and makes other robotic machine shops on wheels that repair themselves? I don't think something like that is even possible.

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

No you did not. I wrote a paragraph explaining why this is not so, and you simply ignored it and claimed victory. That is exactly what I said you would do, yes?

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.

Uh, no, the heart and brain and other organs do not exist in a fertilized egg. But they are added one step at a time as the embryo develops. That is a picture of how evolution works: One step at a time. Biology can remain viable with proteins and functions added one step at a time.

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

Comma.

Let's make a list of all the ways that your author and I have proposed for how the flagellum came into existence.

1. Evolution.
2. Evolution.
3. Evolution.
​

OK, now of all the ideas on the table, let us select the most likely...Hmmm, I think I will select evolution.

Does your author care to throw an alternative on the table that he thinks is more likely than evolution? Or is evolution the only choice? If evolution is the only option on the table, I win.

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

Read the paragraph you quoted and ignored. The answer is in the paragraph you ignored, which I repeat again:

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.​

Let me guess. Once again you will ignore this paragraph and claim victory, yes?

​

 

[pshun2404]

Would you like to tell me how the prediction was made if not by the explanatory power of uniformitarian geology, the fossil succesion and biological evolution?

No! I already know this explanation but I was asking if "prediction" is authentic evidence for you (since you said it I thought you might clarify).

 

[Subduction Zone]

No! I already know this explanation but I was asking if "prediction" is authentic evidence for you (since you said it I thought you might clarify).

When a theory is used to make a prediction and it occurs it is considered to be fairly strong positive evidence. Last year the last of Einstein's predictions for General Relativity was confirmed. It was a pretty big deal.

 

[Job 33:6]

No! I already know this explanation but I was asking if "prediction" is authentic evidence for you (since you said it I thought you might clarify).

ah I see . Sorry for the long post, just felt like speaking, you dont have to read if you dont want to...

Well. The thing is, there are many questions like these, that young earth views, just cannot explain. And that is sincerely the truth. Aside from biases and pre dispositions...if you compare old earth science against young earth science, young earth science cannot compete.

So, ok so maybe many of us arent opposed to an old earth. The bible, as far as im aware, doesnt clarify on its age, so many people may adopt old earth views as a better explanation on scientific grounds. But the problem comes when old earth science, is so well intertwined with other fields of science, including biology that in recognizing an old earth, we inevitably find ourselves in a position in which we recognize the existence of the fossil succession.

We cant have an old earth without the fossil succession because the science that defines geology, is the same science which defines fossil succession. And so, just as someone can know about rocks and predict where rocks will be found, so too can they predict where animals within them will be found. And this is just the reality of how paleontology works and is a common practice. I was doing some research not too long ago and literally, there was a new roadcut, dynamite exposed new rock up the road from me. But before even looking at the rock, you know what fossils will be in it by the nature of understanding the rock. That means understanding, where in the "rock succession" the rock is. Is it ordovician? Silurian? Devonian? Ok, what formation? Upper, lower? if we follow laws of superposition, where will this rock be? Ok, we found the rock. Then, you look closer. Is it terrestrial rock? Is it rock that land animals would walk on? Well, it may have features of terrestrial rock or marine rock, it may be of sandstone (typically sandstones form in sandy environments, like beaches and terrestrial environments), or limestone (carbonaceous deep marine rock) or is it siltstone (shallow marine)? Is it igneous (volcanic rock, maybe felsic, maybe mafic)? Is it metamorphosed sedimentary rocks? Ok, so what we have is a siltstone of this particular formation, alright...you can go further. Is this rock near a historic shoreline? Is it a lake deposit? Often there are stream beds observable in rock where you can see that theyve meandered for thousands of years. You can use structural re-positioning to figure out where the river was flowing and you can follow it. Just like a three dimensional puzzle you can rebuild earth history if you know what to look for.

So, you go through and just by looking at the rock, you look closely at what the rock is made of, and you can understand with great precision, where that rock came from. Ok, its a shallow marine environment, its coastal. Ok, now you can lay the prediction, what animal would likely live here? Well, depending on the age of the rock, if its pre devonian, youre probably going to find invertebrates.

The people who found tiktaalik knew this before they got their helicopter to canada. They knew exactly where they were going, they knew exactly what rock they needed to get into. Tiktaalik (multiple tiktaaliks were found, a formation of them), tiktaalik wasnt found just sitting in the open. They dug at least 10 feet to get to freshwater strata. And then, they found tiktaalik. And actually, theyre back in antarctica right now looking for more. So stay tuned in the next year or two for the next transitional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Theres a lot to it, and it really takes time to go through the steps of doing it, but when you do, it does produce.

So is it authentic? Not sure how we are defining the terms, but it is compelling and the predictive power behind the fossil succession is second to none. And, its common practice to make these predictions, but also, the fossil succession was built just by people who know about rocks. Before Darwin even presented evolution, geologists were already confirming the geologic principals of today. Superposition, law of inclusions, cross cutting relations, original horizontality etc., principals firmly grounded in physics and chemistry.

The fossil succession is fundamentally grounded in physics, chemistry geology and biology. And it is no less authentic than any of these fields, because it was produced by them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must add that the founders of modern geology and the fossil succession, were Christian, and the founding fathers of these discoveries, often attributed their discoveries to our Lord and Savior. All praise is to Him.

 

[Job 33:6]

Kind of a fun question i thought of the other day. If there were no meat eating animals before the flood, how could there be fossilized animals with teeth marks in their bones? Unless the animals died after the flood, which would beg the question of how they became fossilized if other post flood living things werent.

Fossil distributions sychronize with their respective environments. This isnt density sorting.

You get these long columns of sea trans and regression. Multiple global floods? Or just the beach receding and transgressing? Well you can follow the ancient shoreline and see that its just the ocean moving around.

erosion surfaces located along sandstone, as old earth geology would expect. Young earth explanation? Non existent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Last year the last of Einstein's predictions for General Relativity was confirmed. It was a pretty big deal.

After how many tries?

 

[Jimmy D]

After how many tries?

Why does it matter?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does it matter?

Corroboration.

Look how many tries it took to get the moondust right.

Now they backtrack and facepalm anyone who brings it up.

The moondust pwns the idea that the moon has been around for ages and ages.

 

[xianghua]

It was a very early tetrapod and not necessarily the first.

but the fossils showing us something else. where is the prediction then? by the way: creation model also predict transitional objects to be found. a jeep for instance is a transitional between a car and a truck.