Are there transitional fossils?

[xianghua]

Recreations of the skeleton don't even look like the fossil at all, so much so that I can only infer that the "beak" of the "skull" is a shape that resulted from the upper and lower jaws being crushed and compacted together, if that even is a skull. There doesn't seem to be a clear orbit for the eye, and that's usually one of the easiest features to spot on a skull.

we cant claim that the entire skeleton is made from nonsense parts. we can clearly see that this fossils have a bird-like shape in general. so the question remains how all those parts can fit to form a bird-like creature. just a coincidence? i dont think so. if so we can say that its just a coincidence that lucy bones fit to form a human-like ape.

Sure, I can provide that. The foot was discovered at the AL 333 site, which is also the site at which 13 different A. afarensis bodies were discovered.

its a lots of bones. we cant exclude the possibility that this specific part belong to a human.

That's 100 million years before mammals actually appear in the geological column and 15 million years after the first reptile fossils appear, and 25 million years before therapsids existed (the reptiles from which mammals are descended). That's going to entirely disprove mammalian evolution. They will always be nonsense. I am getting tired of you constantly posting these incorrect statements. What do I have to do to demonstrate to you that evolution could be disproven via a fossil?

again: we can push back the evolution of mammals. scientists pushing back creatures all the time:

Earlier origin for flowering plants

Fossils that end up in the wrong stratum of rock don't date the same as the rock that surrounds them... which is part of why we can tell that they aren't in the correct stratum in the first place.

so in every fossil that we found scientists not only date the fossil but also the layers around them?

Yet, you never find an organism with lungs from the Precambrian. You never find a mammal before the first reptiles.

see above with the flower case. by the same logic : till this discovery you never find such a flower that is date about 100 my younger. now we have found such a flower so we can just push it back.

You seem to assume that fossils like a rabbit dating from the Cambrian have actually been discovered, but deemed fakes or incorrect in their dating solely by the fact that a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian would clash with evolution. NO ONE would pass up the opportunity to make the most significant fossil discovery in the history of paleontology just to maintain evolution. There are people that dedicate their lives to disproving evolution just for the shear fact that doing so would mean instant fame and fortune.

remember this one?:

| Biology Letters


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

"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"

"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 would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade (Acrodonta), implying that all major clades of squamates such as iguanians, anguimorphs, snakes, scincomorphs and gekkotans had diverged in the Triassic. However, none of these groups appear unequivocally in the fossil record until substantially later [5]. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

 

[xianghua]

Again, impossible.

If a car's engine block is made of proteins, it will burn up the first time you start it.

I think it is impossible for proteins to make copper wire or electric motors.

so what? it can be made from other components that we dont think about. nature have a lots of interesting ways to solve problems. anyone assumed for instance that nature can have a gear?:

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

so again: if you will find a car with organic wheels and so on you will conclude design or a natural process?

The embryo needs to remain viable throughout its existence. At first it lives off the mother's blood, but soon it needs to develop its own heart, veins and other components. All through its development it remains viable while adding proteins and features step by step. The point is that this is an illustration of what evolution does, add features step by step.

again; not at all. the vision system for instance isnt working till we get the full system. the same is true for other biological systems in the embryo.

 

[xianghua]

That is not an answer to my question. I am sure that you have been told how evolution is testable. I will tell you once you explain how the creation model is testable. We are not talking about "motors" here. And if you are talking about the rotator flagellum then your model has already failed that test.

so the flagellum isnt a motor? not according to all those papers:

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/abstract/S0966-842X(14)00268-6

Elucidating structure of bacterial flagellar motor protein: Researchers reveal the 3-D structure of a bacterial propeller protein

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161737?journalCode=biochem

The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor - ScienceDirect

 

[Subduction Zone]

so the flagellum isnt a motor? not according to all those papers:

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/abstract/S0966-842X(14)00268-6

Elucidating structure of bacterial flagellar motor protein: Researchers reveal the 3-D structure of a bacterial propeller protein

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161737?journalCode=biochem

The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor - ScienceDirect

Wrong again. None of those make that claim. I can help you to understand those articles.

 

[Job 33:6]

again: by this logic we can push back humans to 20-30 my.

If you cannot understand the difference between tetrapod evolution 400 million years ago, and human evolution in the past million, and how those two are identified in the fossil succession, there isn't much anyone here can do for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

does tiktaalik have a tetrapod-like spine? no. but gar do have such a spine.

Are you asking if it is a chordate? The answer is yes.

But again, this is all irrelevant. You haven't answered how predictions were made in the discovery of tiktaalik, and so you seem to be randomly bringing up gar fish.

 

[Job 33:6]

so the flagellum isnt a motor? not according to all those papers:

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/abstract/S0966-842X(14)00268-6

Elucidating structure of bacterial flagellar motor protein: Researchers reveal the 3-D structure of a bacterial propeller protein

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161737?journalCode=biochem

The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor - ScienceDirect

Do you know that the person who is known for proposing the argument revolved around the bacterial flagella (Michael Behe) is actually a proponent of common descent? He is not opposed to science behind the fossil succession, and he is not opposed to common descent of the animal kingdom (mammals from reptiles from amphibians from fish etc.)

 

[Job 33:6]

removing repeated post

 

[Job 33:6]

removing repeated post

 

[xianghua]

Wrong again. None of those make that claim. I can help you to understand those articles.

they call it a motor. you disagree with those papers? publish your own papers.

 

[xianghua]

If you cannot understand the difference between tetrapod evolution 400 million years ago, and human evolution in the past million, and how those two are identified in the fossil succession, there isn't much anyone here can do for you.

same to you: if you cant understand why if we can push a tetrapod fossil by 20 my then we can push also human by 20my i cant do much for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

they call it a motor. you disagree with those papers? publish your own papers.

But they do not claim that it is a motor.

I don't disagree with them, you simply do not understand the articles. You should read more than just the titles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

same to you: if you cant understand why if we can push a tetrapod fossil by 20 my then we can push also human by 20my i cant do much for you.

No, it is not a change of the same sort at all. "Tetrapod" is a huge group. Humans are a very very small group.

 

[Job 33:6]

same to you: if you cant understand why if we can push a tetrapod fossil by 20 my then we can push also human by 20my i cant do much for you.

Irrelevant. You have no argument, you're just speaking now.

 

[pshun2404]

Darwin also wrote,
The Descent of Man, p. 178.

He also wrote about A. Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin's Sacred Cause, p. 18.

How many white men in Britain or the United States during the 19th century, or the first half of the 20th, would have said that they had been intimate with a full-blooded negro, or would say that he was a very pleasant and intelligent man whom they often used to sit with?

Now compare Darwin's words with Charles Carroll's book http://www.biblical-truth.info/In the$20Image$20of$20God - by Charles Carroll.pdf

Who do you think was more racist, Charles Darwin, or Charles Carroll and the American Book and Bible House, which published this disgusting work? By the way, I feel physically nauseated at reading and copying out this trash, but I think that it is necessary in order to show what some Christians and anti-evolutionists were capable of saying about people of other races.

First, you are right...many who called/call themselves "Christian" are not only racist but other things just as bad. The key with them is "you shall know them by their fruits (Now read Matthew 25)....He NEVER knew them because they do not have His Spirit in them (Romans 8:9)...being a genuine follower of Jesus is not a club you join...you actually become transformed over time.

And it is probably true that Darwin was more racially prejudiced (as was normal) than racist but people close to him took the concept of graduated levels of evolution to an extreme....

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, you are right...many who called/call themselves "Christian" are not only racist but other things just as bad. The key with them is "you shall know them by their fruits (Now read Matthew 25)....He NEVER knew them because they do not have His Spirit in them (Romans 8:9)...being a genuine follower of Jesus is not a club you join...you actually become transformed over time.

And it is probably true that Darwin was more racially prejudiced (as was normal) than racist but people close to him took the concept of graduated levels of evolution to an extreme....

What are you taking about? Darwin was far less racist than most people of his time. Dishonest creationists try to change that fact.

And please, you need to take the good with the bad when it comes to your religion. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians. Just as there have been good atheists and bad atheists.

 

[doubtingmerle]

they call it a motor. you disagree with those papers? publish your own papers.

Wait, when they called a flagellum a motor, they meant an electrical motor with copper wires? That's odd, I thought it was just a metaphor, saying that it was somewhat analogous to an electric motor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so again: if you will find a car with organic wheels and so on you will conclude design or a natural process?

Again, same answer I gave you over and over again.

We know how real mechanical cars are designed. If it is a car with mechanical components, then it was most likely designed by engineers.

And we know how DNA is designed. If you find a fictitious "car" like you keep talking about made of living cells with DNA, then it most likely was designed by the process of mutation and selection.

But as there is no strong selection for an animal to evolve to be car-like, and since building most car components from DNA is probably impossible, I predict that we will not find an animal car.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so what? it can be made from other components that we dont think about. nature have a lots of interesting ways to solve problems. anyone assumed for instance that nature can have a gear?:

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

Sorry, that is not a gearbox. That is not a camshaft. And it is not an engine block. I do not think such things could be made from DNA and proteins.

 

[xianghua]

But they do not claim that it is a motor.

you are kidding me, right? here is from one of those papers:

"The bacterial flagellum is a reversible rotary motor powered by an electrochemical-potential difference of specific ions across the cytoplasmic membrane. The H+-driven motor of Salmonella spins at ∼300 Hz, whereas the Na+-driven motor of marine Vibrio spp. can rotate much faster, up to 1700 Hz" [/QUOTE]

so you are wrong here.