Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[Occams Barber]

So then no evolutionist should have a problem producing millions of examples.

Have you ever considered the limitations on finding fossils?

1. The animal must die in a situation where its corpse is protected from being destroyed by predation. This includes protection from other animals, insects, fungi, plants, bacteria and chemical degradation (for example; acidity or oxygen).

2. The animal must die in a situation where gradual mineralisation of the body parts (typically shell or skeleton) can take place with minimal mechanical damage. Typically in still, anaerobic water with a high level of siltation allowing the body to be quickly, but gently, interred in silt.

3. The putative fossil must not be exposed to damaging natural forces such as flood, wind, water or glacial erosion and avoid destruction in geological events such as earthquakes, volcanos, subduction and uplift, continental drift and other tectonic movements.

4. To be found, the fossil must be on the surface and more or less visible. Given that most of the earth’s surface is covered by water, or soil and plants, or snow and ice, this generally limits fossil discovery to accessible, unvegetated areas of exposed rock. These areas are usually unsuited to human habitation limiting the ‘eyes’ available for discovery.

5. To be found, the fossil must be recognised as a fossil. This means it must be sighted by someone with expertise in fossils or, be so obvious, that it can be recognised by a non-expert.​

Given the hoops that a potential fossil must jump through to be eventually discovered it’s surprising that we have any.
OB

 

[SkyWriting]

Have you ever considered the limitations on finding fossils? 1. The animal must die in a situation where its corpse is protected from being destroyed by predation. This includes protection from other animals, insects, fungi, plants, bacteria and chemical degradation (for example; acidity or oxygen).2. The animal must die in a situation where gradual mineralisation of the body parts (typically shell or skeleton) can take place with minimal mechanical damage. Typically in still, anaerobic water with a high level of siltation allowing the body to be quickly, but gently, interred in silt.3. The putative fossil must not be exposed to damaging natural forces such as flood, wind, water or glacial erosion and avoid destruction in geological events such as earthquakes, volcanos, subduction and uplift, continental drift and other tectonic movements.4. To be found, the fossil must be on the surface and more or less visible. Given that most of the earth’s surface is covered by water, or soil and plants, or snow and ice, this generally limits fossil discovery to accessible, unvegetated areas of exposed rock. These areas are usually unsuited to human habitation limiting the ‘eyes’ available for discovery.
5. To be found, the fossil must be recognised as a fossil. This means it must be sighted by someone with expertise in fossils or, be so obvious, that it can be recognised by a non-expert.

I wasn't considering fossils. Somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000
new species are identified each year.

 

[Arius]

Lie.
Untruth.
Falsehood.

Why do we, as Christians, give people a "pass" on such outright falsehoods? Are we afraid to say anything critical at all about our fellow Christians no matter how outright zany their claims?

Just to set the record straight on this with, you know, actual facts. From Scientific American:

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. An amazing fossil creature from 375 million years ago named Tiktaalik embodies the predicted and long-sought transition of certain fishes to life on land. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominins (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Yes true, Christians who are members of the Christian Religion should believe in the non-scientific, never have been observed "Evolution Story" which just follows the Christian invented Big-Bang story, by none other than the Catholic Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre.

Christian update:

 

[Arius]

And most fossil species; while populations continue to evolve, they're in continuous transition.

.. yes, the fossil of a lizard and a bird shown next to each other 'proves' they are in continuous transition. Just look at one, then the other, .. see how fast they transition!?

Here is actual photos of transitioning species:

Time 0:21 .. right there, .. that's where the Gorilla split, and one transitioned into a chimp, and the other into this white suburban Christian housewife.

I tell you it would upset me much if someone put my photo in a monkey family album and went on a tour showing it! How is it that people put up with this mans mockery of humanity?

Here he is telling this School girl that she is distant cousin of rats! Time 3:34

 

[Occams Barber]

.. yes, the fossil of a lizard and a bird shown next to each other 'proves' they are in continuous transition. Just look at one, then the other, .. see how fast they transition!?

Here is actual photos of transitioning species:

Time 0:21 .. right there, .. that's where the Gorilla split, and one transitioned into a chimp, and the other into this white suburban Christian housewife.

I tell you it would upset me much if someone put my photo in a monkey family album and went on a tour showing it! How is it that people put up with this mans mockery of humanity?

Here he is telling this School girl that she is distant cousin of rats! Time 3:34

I can understand you being reluctant to believe an evil atheist biologist like Professor Dickie Dawkins.

How do you feel about the American Museum of Natural History? - one of the most prestigious museums in the world?

Here's the link > Meet The Relatives
OB

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. yes, the fossil of a lizard and a bird shown next to each other 'proves' they are in continuous transition. Just look at one, then the other, .. see how fast they transition!?

"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said..." William F. Buckley Jr.

 

[Arius]

I can understand you being reluctant to believe an evil atheist biologist like Professor Dickie Dawkins.

How do you feel about the American Museum of Natural History? - one of the most prestigious museums in the world?

Here's the link > Meet The Relatives
OB

Yes, pretty cool 3-D stuff, and amazing how similar the chimp is to a human, .. it's almost as if the Creator made us from the same earth, same architectural plan, all similar to hopefully keep Adam company, right? But, given that God created man with free will, that didn't quite make it. So God made a female out of his rib.

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field.
(As you can see, Adam was a scientist right off the bat, he did taxonomy right after he was created)
But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

As far as this new croc-a-duck invention, it's no different than what NASA does in "finding new (I like the phrase) earth-like planets" every now and then to keep the already stupefied peoples minds occupied. The BB, like the evolution story, it's not really worth the time to debate.

Besides, once someone asks the right question that shows just how ridiculous the evolution idea really is, Evolutionists will just make up something to "fill the gap", no matter how much it costs us, they are willing to sacrifice it all to keep the lie alive. The same with the BB where NASA will spend billions of our hard earned dollars to keep shooting rockets up in the air to make it look like they are going into their imaginary space, .. then just crash them into the ocean. Keeping both BB and Evolution alive is very costly.

Actually, .. it would save us all; Believers, and non-Believers to just tell snake tongued NASA, and 666CERN that "We believe you, the earth is a globe, and you are all evolving apes!" This way they would not have a reason to keep robbing us of billion$ a month.

 

[Astrophile]

Creationists are not seeking a scattering of examples. What they are seeking is scores of examples that should exist if evolution was actually a blind, random force of nature. In that scenario most fossils should be transitional forms in between groups. The vast majority of fossils should be transitional mistakes and mashups.

As I've said before, the transitional mistakes and mashups end up in the stomachs of other animals and so are not preserved as fossils.

 

[SkyWriting]

As I've said before, the transitional mistakes and mashups end up in the stomachs of other animals and so are not preserved as fossils.

So how would such transitional forms you imagine
did exist, exist long enough to reproduce and mutate,
while in stomachs? Have you thought this through?

 

[Speedwell]

So how would such transitional forms you imagine
did exist, exist long enough to reproduce and mutate,
while in stomachs? Have you thought this through?

That's the point; they don't. Only the successful transitional forms survive and reproduce.

 

[Ophiolite]

The actual proof of evolution would be transitional fossils, of which none have been found.

1. We don't prove anything in science. We accumulate a body of evidence, construct an explanation that is then subject to multiple and repeated tests. Transitional fossils form part of such an approach.
2. Many, many examples of transitional fossils have been found. The literature abounds with examples. Fatuous statements to the contrary do not counter detailed scientific analysis.
3. Technically every fossil if it, as a living organism, generated viable offspring is itself a transitional fossil.

This is why they came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, to explain why we don't find any; the evolution happens too fast!

1. "They" were Gould and Eldredge, a very small subset of those scientists who study evolution. The reality and extent of punctuated equilibrium remain a hotly debated arena.
2. The entire point of PE is that some evolution happens rapidly, between periods of relative stability.

It's also why we don't observe it happening anywhere in the world today, because it isn't true.

1. Again, there are mutliple examples of ongoing evolution. It requires superb intellectual gymnastics, coupled with selective vision to deny this.
2. As for 1. above.
3. As for 1. and 2. above, in 84 point Arial Black font.

 

[Speedwell]

The entire point of PE is that some evolution happens rapidly, between periods of relative stability.

With respect to PI, there is apparently another feedback loop in play in evolution besides variation-selection. In long periods of stable environments, the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation will shrink. The reason for that is that maintaining a broad spread of variants is expensive to the species (areas under curves being what they are) producing large numbers of less-than-fit animals. In times of environmental stress or opportunity, the standard deviation of the distribution gets larger, to throw out a larger number of variants potentially able to take advantange of the rapid change of selection criteria.

I'm sorry I don't have a source for this--I read about it some time ago in Scientific American at an airport newsstand.

 

[thesunisout]

1. We don't prove anything in science. We accumulate a body of evidence, construct an explanation that is then subject to multiple and repeated tests. Transitional fossils form part of such an approach.
2. Many, many examples of transitional fossils have been found. The literature abounds with examples. Fatuous statements to the contrary do not counter detailed scientific analysis.
3. Technically every fossil if it, as a living organism, generated viable offspring is itself a transitional fossil.

1. Then why does the national academy of sciences call evolution a fact?

2. The best ones have been proven to be frauds. There isn't a single one that fits the bill.

3. Technically every living being is a special creation of God and disproves evolution.

1. "They" were Gould and Eldredge, a very small subset of those scientists who study evolution. The reality and extent of punctuated equilibrium remain a hotly debated arena.
2. The entire point of PE is that some evolution happens rapidly, between periods of relative stability

The point of PE is to explain why they can't find any transitional fossils

1. Again, there are mutliple examples of ongoing evolution. It requires superb intellectual gymnastics, coupled with selective vision to deny this.
2. As for 1. above.
3. As for 1. and 2. above, in 84 point Arial Black font.

1. You can produce multiple examples of speciation, which creationists do not deny, and which doesn't prove that all life descended from a common ancestor. What you cant find are any examples of one kind turning into another; reptiles to birds, whales to land animals, dogs into aardvarks, etc. Don't you find that curious?

 

[wernalip]

It looks fake, I have not heard reliable news about it yet.

 

[Ophiolite]

1. Then why does the national academy of sciences call evolution a fact?

There are several equally valid ways of answering this. I'll choose the shortest one.
A. Evolution is a fact.
B. The Neo-Darwinian explanation of common descent through natural selection and other mechanisms acting upon a gene pool periodically rejuvenated by mutations is a theory. [In science it doesn't really get any better than a theory. That's not a put down of theories, that's a glorious celebration of them.]

2. The best ones have been proven to be frauds. There isn't a single one that fits the bill.

Balderdash and humbug. The only way you can reach such a conclusion is by having utterly failed to actually examine the evidence. Note that a productive discussion on matters of evolution is only possible if both parties have properly made extensive studies of the subject. Had you done so you would be unable to post such nonsense with a straight face.

However, in the interests of furthering the discussion I shall happily provide five validated transitional fossils for each fraud you care to present.

3. Technically every living being is a special creation of God and disproves evolution.

I have no problem if you choose to accept the dictates of your faith based upon your interpretation of scripture (and perhaps personal revelation) and thereby reject evolution. It saddens me, but it is something you have every right to do and which I have no obkection to.

I do however vigorously object to nonsensical posturing regarding scientific matters that you are apparently very poorly informed about. I shall entertain serious scientific objections to evolution that you may have, but if your base position is established purely on your faith, then we are done here.

The point of PE is to explain why they can't find any transitional fossils

More nonsense. It is intended to explain why there are periods of stasis, followed by rapid periods of evolution. If it was intended to explain the alleged absence of transitional fossils, then Stephen Jay Gould would have routinely declared that no transitional fossils exist. You really need to learn to distinguish between sound bite simplifications and the richly complex, subtly nuanced properly researched theories they seek to describe via a dumbing down process. Instead of dumbing down, try smartening up.

1. You can produce multiple examples of speciation, which creationists do not deny, and which doesn't prove that all life descended from a common ancestor. What you cant find are any examples of one kind turning into another; reptiles to birds, whales to land animals, dogs into aardvarks, etc. Don't you find that curious?

I find it curious that anti-evolutionists trot out the same tired, faulty arguments that have been dealt with repeatedly and do so like a broken phonograph record.

Now, I am happy to progress this discussion on the basis of sound science, not silly assertions you pluck out of the ether. Frankly, however, I think it would be much more productive if you simply accepted that demonstrable science disagress with your faith and therefore you shall, in future, ignore science. The choice of course is yours.

 

[Ophiolite]

With respect to PI, there is apparently another feedback loop in play in evolution besides variation-selection. In long periods of stable environments, the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation will shrink. The reason for that is that maintaining a broad spread of variants is expensive to the species (areas under curves being what they are) producing large numbers of less-than-fit animals. In times of environmental stress or opportunity, the standard deviation of the distribution gets larger, to throw out a larger number of variants potentially able to take advantange of the rapid change of selection criteria.

I'm sorry I don't have a source for this--I read about it some time ago in Scientific American at an airport newsstand.

Thank you for the input. I have been convinced, since studying palaontology at university in the sixties, that there are mechanisms at work we have not fully detailed, or - in some cases - even properly recognised. Thus I greeted PE, hox genes, evo-devo and the like, with much enthusiasm. Much more remains to be found. Exciting times.

Do you recall an approximate year when you ran across this article? I may try to track it down. It sounds interesting.

 

[thesunisout]

There are several equally valid ways of answering this. I'll choose the shortest one.
A. Evolution is a fact.
B. The Neo-Darwinian explanation of common descent through natural selection and other mechanisms acting upon a gene pool periodically rejuvenated by mutations is a theory. [In science it doesn't really get any better than a theory. That's not a put down of theories, that's a glorious celebration of them.]

Balderdash and humbug. The only way you can reach such a conclusion is by having utterly failed to actually examine the evidence. Note that a productive discussion on matters of evolution is only possible if both parties have properly made extensive studies of the subject. Had you done so you would be unable to post such nonsense with a straight face.

However, in the interests of furthering the discussion I shall happily provide five validated transitional fossils for each fraud you care to present.

I have no problem if you choose to accept the dictates of your faith based upon your interpretation of scripture (and perhaps personal revelation) and thereby reject evolution. It saddens me, but it is something you have every right to do and which I have no obkection to.

I do however vigorously object to nonsensical posturing regarding scientific matters that you are apparently very poorly informed about. I shall entertain serious scientific objections to evolution that you may have, but if your base position is established purely on your faith, then we are done here.

More nonsense. It is intended to explain why there are periods of stasis, followed by rapid periods of evolution. If it was intended to explain the alleged absence of transitional fossils, then Stephen Jay Gould would have routinely declared that no transitional fossils exist. You really need to learn to distinguish between sound bite simplifications and the richly complex, subtly nuanced properly researched theories they seek to describe via a dumbing down process. Instead of dumbing down, try smartening up.

I find it curious that anti-evolutionists trot out the same tired, faulty arguments that have been dealt with repeatedly and do so like a broken phonograph record.

Now, I am happy to progress this discussion on the basis of sound science, not silly assertions you pluck out of the ether. Frankly, however, I think it would be much more productive if you simply accepted that demonstrable science disagress with your faith and therefore you shall, in future, ignore science. The choice of course is yours.

Since you're slandering me I don't see any point in continuing the conversation. Have a good one

 

[Ophiolite]

Since you're slandering me I don't see any point in continuing the conversation. Have a good one

An online definition of slander:
"oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed."

I do hereby attest that I did not speak any of the elements of my post to you. Consequently I cannot have slandered you. Perhaps you meant libel.

If you feel it more comforting to run away from the discussion, rather than present evidence that I have stated an untruth, so be it. I maintain each of my statements was true until such time as you or any others interested party demonstrate their inaccuracy.

As a gesture of goodwill I shall refrain from suing you for libel for claiming the best transitional fossils have all been exposed as frauds.

 

[loveofourlord]

But don't you understand? That's the Crockaduck creationists have long been seeking! Now we know that evolution is false and we must all become right-wing Evangelical Protestants at once.

The crocoduck was found years ago :>

 

[pitabread]

What you cant find are any examples of one kind turning into another; reptiles to birds, whales to land animals, dogs into aardvarks, etc. Don't you find that curious?

What I find really curious is there is never any sort of consistent definition of the word "kind" used by creationists and that has any sort of demonstrable biological reality.