Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When I began studying biology we were missing transitionals for:
Yea true.
Also, PE is not actually opposed to or contra-evolution. In fact, figures like Gould simply acknowledge certain modes of evolution as being more in line with the fossil record than others. Maybe Barbarian already said this, but you can just read Goulds papers on PE. Gould saw punctuated equilibrium as a natural consequence of allopatric (especially peripatric) speciation, where most evolutionary change occurs during speciation events in small, isolated populations, leaving long periods of stasis in the fossil record.The absence of transitional fossils is not just a YEC argument.
Touche.
The Tiktaalik Missing Link Myth
In 2004, the paleontological community—and the world—was presented with what many evolutionists considered to be a dyed-in-the-wool missing link between fish and land animals (tetrapods). Evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin and evolutionary paleontologists Edward Daeschler and Farish Jenkins...www.icr.org
So do I prefer God's word. And, yes, it's up to the unnatural (not supernatural) faith of the theistic evolutionist to choose what they want to believe.
? Still deceptively editing your citations? Here's Dr. Wise's sentences immediately before your quote:
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory.
The math problem resides is in just how many steps would be necessary? You'll need more time, lots more time.
The rest of your post regurgitates evo claims already debunked.
- Combinatorial Inflation: Meyer points out that for a short protein of 150 amino acids, the ratio of functional to non-functional sequences is roughly 1 to 10 to the 77 power. He argues that the estimated 4 billion years of Earth's history and the 10 to the 40 power organisms that have existed are insufficient to explore such a vast space of possibilities, making it highly improbable for random, functional sequences to emerge.
Yes. Eldredge and Gould gave credit to Ernst Mayr, for his observation that unusual species tended to be in out-of-the way places. This is how the idea of allopatric speciation as the norm got established. Mayr tended to focus on the idea of discontinuous change, while Eldredge and Gould emphasized stasis. This built on Darwin's observation that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would be kept from evolving very much by natural selection.
Wise is known to be compulsively honest. Which seriously disturbs Ham. Fun fact: Stephen Gould once accepted Wise as a doctoral candidate, while knowing that Wise is a YE creationist. As Gould once remarked, "all that really matters is ability."
"Resources seriously"? The footnotes in the article are from evo scientists or their journals.
I did.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Copying a random web link is not presentation of an argument. Nothing in your post has anything to do with tiktaalik or why it is not a transitional fossil.
"Resources seriously"? The footnotes in the article are from evo scientists or their journals.
I did.
________________________________________________
The ID theory is not the only problem old school evo's face; it's their own evo colleagues calling for more chewing gum and chicken wire to put forward a neo-neo evo theory.
Schism and Synthesis at the Royal SocietySchism and Synthesis at the Royal Society - PubMed
November 7-9, 2016 witnessed a joint discussion meeting of the Royal Society and the British Academy (the UK national academies for the sciences and social sciences, respectively) entitled 'New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: Biological, Philosophical and Social Science Perspectives'. The...“Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” ... A division over basic processes at the core of any theory suggests that the theory is incomplete, based on misleading research, or broken. ... Modern Synthesis which proposes that random genetic mutations are “acted on” by progressive iterations of a struggle to survive has some fundamental problems. Problems not only in the sufficiency of those mechanisms to account for the diversity of life, but a basic conceptual problem with the projection of volition onto nature to exercise “agency” as a causal substitute for areas where the handiwork of a real intelligent agent would normally be understood".
After the neo-neo evo theory gains consensus among your own scientists, get back to us on the particulars of the revised theory and we could restart this thread. Until then, Hasta la vista!
Random? Hardly. Here you go:
Ok. And those citations support tiktaalik as a transitional form. So what is your point in sharing them?Random? Hardly. Here you go:
The Tiktaalik Missing Link Myth
In 2004, the paleontological community—and the world—was presented with what many evolutionists considered to be a dyed-in-the-wool missing link between fish and land animals (tetrapods). Evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin and evolutionary paleontologists Edward Daeschler and Farish Jenkins...Their report was published in Daeschler, E. B., N. H. Shubin, and F. A. Jenkins Jr. 2006. A Devonian Tetrapod-Like Fish and the Evolution of the Tetrapod Body Plan. Nature. 440 (7085): 757–763.Niedzwiedzki, G. et al. 2010. Tetrapod Trackways from the Early Middle Devonian Period of Poland. Nature. 463 (7277): 43–48.Schultz, C. Ancient Walking Fish May Have Walked on All Fours. Smithsonian Magazine. Posted on smithsonianmag.com January 14, 2014.Shubin, N. H., E.B. Daeschler, and F. A. Jenkins Jr. 2014. Pelvic Girdle and Fin of Tiktaalik roseae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (3): 893–899.Clack, J. A. 2009. The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2 (2): 213–223.Denton, M. 2016. Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 159.Hickman, C. et al. 2024. Integrated Principles of Zoology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 557.Fossil Tracks Show Reptiles Appeared on Earth up to 40 Million Years Earlier. Flinders University. Posted on sciencedaily.com May 14, 2025.Long, J. et al. 2025. Earliest Amniote Tracks Recalibrate the Timeline of Tetrapod Evolution. Nature. 641 (8065): 1193–1200.
Ok. So, let's make this simple. Can you provide 1 professional scientific paper that suggests that "reptile fossil tracks were discovered in 2025 that predate tiktaalik" ?
There is no "ID theory." Like "theistic physics", it's a religous belief.
A huge body of data shows that statement to be foolish and wrong. The observed evolution of an new enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. Genetic algorithms used by engineers that copy Darwinian process, that do exactly what the ICR denies.
I would oppose any governmental support for any religious belief, be it atheism, ID, deism, or theism. Research that merely gathers evidence to test a hypothesis would be Constitutional. Even if the researcher was a creationist, atheist, or whatever.
Yes. But of course science is methodologically naturalistic, not ontologically naturalistic. That's just a limitation of science; it can neither affirm nor deny the supernatural.
The claim appears to be from IDer Michael Denton's Evolution: a Theory Still in Crisis it's not a journal article or even research paper. (Both of which Denton has competently authoried). It's mostly a polemic against evolution. Which is odd, since he has since acknowledged that evolution is a fact. ( Nature's Destiny) I can show anyone who doubts this.
First, it's a transitional. You've misunderstood the term you used. It's not "missing links"; it's "missing lynx." And they found them:
Published in a scientific journal. Or, heck, let's have some fun, published anywhere?
Off topic, but I got into a habit of reading the ICR and Answers in Genesis websites when I was Lutheran LCMS, with the hope I could learn about and understand the creationist POV. I just became an even stronger theological evolutionist.
