For newbies....

[OldBadfish]

Today at 05:19 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #39



To be fair, there are quite a number of transitional fosssils. They have been showing up for a long time and quite a few have shown up lately regarding both whale and bird evolution. 

 


Here are a few more for you to ponder.

First one refuting some of AiG's misleading claims about recent whale fossil finds.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html 

Here are some general links on transitional fossil. I expect that many have seen these before but here they are again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossils.html

If some of the fossil hominids in the link below were not transitional why are they identified as either apes or human depending on which creationist misidentified them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Concering the theraspid-mammal transition.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

If  you are a YEC maybe you can explain why the flood buried these critters in an order that just happened to mimic evolution.  Of course I have never seen a YEC successfully explain anything in the fossil record using "flood geology" so I doubt it. 

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Wow, you are a die hard evolutionist huh Frumious? So in your mind creation isn't a possibility? How about intelligent design?

Can you give an example of some species now, that give any indication that they are in a transitional state right now?

 

[Arikay]

Well, thats a different story all together.

What those scientists are probably talking about is the pieces that link one species to another.

However there is way more than enough evidence to show evolution (both micro and macro) happens.

I would however like to see some info about these Evolutionist scientists that believe not all the pieces are there to show evolution exists.

 

[notto]

Today at 09:45 PM Badfish said this in Post #41

Can you give an example of some species now, that give any indication that they are in a transitional state right now?

All of them.

Can you define transitional state? What would you consider transitional?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Wow, you are a die hard evolutionist huh Frumious?

I am a scientist, not a "diehard evolutionist". I accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, the fossil record and the genetic relatedness of life.  There are multiple lines of evidence supporting evolution. Have you looked at any of the links? I also accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for an ancient earth and against the worldwide flood.  BTW, are you a YEC or an OEC?

So in your mind creation isn't a possibility?

Wrong. Creation is a possiblity. Young Earth Creationism is not unless God went to a lot of trouble to leave false evidence for evolution and an ancient earth and covered up all the evidence of the alleged worlwide flood. 

How about intelligent design?

I see too many instances of "bad design" to consider this likely. How about semi-intelligent design?


Notto has already answered the transitional species question.


Regards from
The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

I would agree with that "bad design" comment.

I would say that the universe in a whole isnt a bad design (when taking Inteligent design to that level).

However there are plenty of problems that exist in man and animal to think that we are good designs. These problems are much more than "bad mutations"

A Quick example is the unused bone on each side of a dolphins (I believe its dolphins). dolphins have a bone in them that has no purpose whatso ever. Why would god put a random bone in a dolphin?
One theory about the bones is that since it seems to be shrinking over the years, that it might have been for front arms when the dolphin made a failed attempt at being on land, and has been going away ever since the dolphin returned to being a complete water animal.
(information is from memory so it may not be completly accurate )

 

[Cantuar]

Arikay, not just creationists, there are many evolutionary scientists that will admit not all the pieces are there.

Well, of course not all the pieces are there. That doesn't alter the fact that there are some very clear examples of transitional series and also that according to the creationist view, there shouldn't be any. Not that there shouldn't be many, that there shouldn't be any at all. Important difference. If God made all these species separately in special creations, there shouldn't be ANY transitional fossils. The finding of just one falsifies the statement that there aren't any. The difference between a few and a whole lot is irrelevant in that context.

Now, if you want to say that God created all these species in the whale series, with their increasing adaptations to marine life, all at once and then arranged for them to die in such an order in the flood that the ones appearing more terrestrial were always buried below the ones appearing slightly less terrestrial, then I'm wondering why God would do that. Why go to such lengths to make it appear that the species evolved when he didn't have to? And just in case you want to come back with some story about how the better swimmers would have died after the less good ones, remember that for the fish-amphibian series, it's the more terrestrial species that ended up higher in the column.

If you want to say that God did create these species over a long period but still created them individually, then I'd be interested to know why God would create a lifeform, let it live for a million years or so, then let it go extinct, and replace it with another lifeform that was very similar but not identical, repeat the process but replace THAT one with another lifeform less similar again to the original one, and so on and so on until he'd individually created a whole lot of different creatures, each progressively less like the first one and progressively more like modern ones. Again, why go to all the trouble of making it look as if evolution had occurred when he didn't have to?

 

[OldBadfish]

Ok, what do you guys consider bad design?

Yes Frumious I am looking at them.

As a fundamentalist I accept the YEC POV. I see no reason not to at this time.

The worldwide flood, could have been more localized than described, people of that era were not as widely dispersed around the entire world like today, so maybe the flood was a little bit more localized.

I have been reading and studying about that too.

I really am not an expert at all, I am a physics student and my teacher talks with me after classes about Entropy and the Universe, you see I am really fascinated with space and the workings of the cosmo's, but I am just a newbie compared to some of you when it comes to fossil evidence and deep biology studies.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As a fundamentalist I accept the YEC POV. I see no reason not to at this time.

So do you reject the multiple lines of scientific evidence showing that the earth is far more than 10,000 years old or have you just never considered them?

The worldwide flood, could have been more localized than described, people of that era were not as widely dispersed around the entire world like today, so maybe the flood was a little bit more localized.

A local worldwide flood. Hmmm. That's a new one on me.

Most old earth creationists, Hugh Ross for example, think that the flood of Noah was a local event based on the possible meaning of the word erets as land rather than entire earth and of course the massive scientific evidence against a global flood.

I don't recall that I have ever run across a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the flood of Noah was local. Modern YECs use the flood in a hopeless attempt to explain the multiple layers of sedimentary rock and the fossil record. How would you explain the geologic column?

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm

and the fossil record?

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ff.htm

with a young earth and a local flood? Did God create the sedimentary layers with their fossils in place? The Omphalos Hypothesis of creation with apparent age, sometimes referred to as last Tuesdayism, doesn't seem very satifactory to me.

At least with a local flood you evade the problems of biogeography and biodiversity that falsify the worldwide flood but the young earth problems are still there. Are you aware that it was creationists geologists in the 18th and 19th centuries who falsified the young earth and global flood?  They expected to find evidence of recent creation and a global flood but instead found evidence of an old earth and against a global flood. Unlike modern YECs they changed their theory to fit the evidence rather than distorting the evidence to fit their religious beliefs.

The Frumious Bandersnatch