Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[dad]

you're just denying the metamaphysical-last-thursday split now...

Really? No wonder it seems a challenge to identify what sex you are supposed to be. You used to have a male avatar. Now it seems a mystery. You have admitted being related to rats and cockcroaches, yet now you won't admit being related to your parents.

Behold, kids, one of the old age evo would be heavy hitters here!
Remember, this is not me putting words in 'her' mouth!

Right, I can't support your claims any more than you can, missy.

 

[Pure_in_Heart]

I agree. Now how does that relate to the quote you snipped? I am a bible believing young earth creationist. Are you suggesting that rapid evoltion of cretaures God cretaed in the past may be bad? Or...? Who's the good guys here, and what is the bad?

"rapid evolution"? No, there is no evolution, but creation.

 

[Jet Black]

Right, I can't support your claims any more than you can, missy.

lol, you are just so in denial. I'll let you climb back in your PO box.

 

[Jet Black]

"rapid evolution"? No, there is no evolution, but creation.

no, dad's right on this one. To squish everything into the ark 4000 years ago, you would need far more genetic variability than could have been put on the ark, even if you took a sample of all the creatures alive, threw them in a blender and hit frappé. You just can't do it. Just think, you have to fit one of every species alive today, and all of the thousands of extinct species we have found. There are hundreds of dinosaurs, loads of sort of theropod ave things, all those tetrapods, tons of therapsids, about six or sevendifferent sorts of elephant which are all morphologically quite different, thousands of different species of birds, mammals and repriles. you name it, tons of them. Then you have to put enough food on the ark to feed them all. Simply can't be done, so the creationists with brains realised that you would have to have lots of evolution from a few basic kinds. That requires some serious hyperevolution.

 

[dad]

"rapid evolution"? No, there is no evolution, but creation.

I understand your opinion. Can you give biblical support for why God's creation, in creation week, and later, like after the flood, had no adaptive abilities? If they did, it would explain things, like how all kinds could have fit on the ark. (adapting into many species later)

What about the serpent in Eden? Didn't God cause it to change a lot real quick? It had to go on it's belly!
I expect to be changed soon as well, pretty quick. In the twinkling of an eye.

 

[dad]

no, dad's right on this one. To squish everything into the ark 4000 years ago, you would need far more genetic variability than could have been put on the ark, even if you took a sample of all the creatures alive, threw them in a blender and hit frappé. You just can't do it. Just think, you have to fit one of every species alive today, and all of the thousands of extinct species we have found. ....

No! Not if the majority of the fossil record is pre flood. They could have been just as extinct at flood time as they are now.

 

[Jet Black]

No! Not if the majority of the fossil record is pre flood. They could have been just as extinct at flood time as they are now.

sorry dad, but God specifically instructed Noah to put two or seven of every kind - animals, birds and creeping things. According to Woodmorappe, that would be about 16,000 kinds. Though I doubt he is taking into account all the dozens of different Therapsid kinds and so on. (don't try to claim that all the therapsods were one kind, you might as well try claiming that geckos are the same kind as chickens and dogs).

sorry dude, it's your box, you have to put at least two of every kind in it. Can't you see how silly your Old Earth Box is now?

 

[dad]

sorry dad, but God specifically instructed Noah to put two or seven of every kind - animals, birds and creeping things. According to Woodmorappe, that would be about 16,000 kinds.

According to the bible it was an ark full. Who you gonna believe?

Though I doubt he is taking into account all the dozens of different Therapsid kinds and so on. (don't try to claim that all the therapsods were one kind, you might as well try claiming that geckos are the same kind as chickens and dogs).

What evidence can you provide these babies were not extinct at the time of the flood?

 

[Jet Black]

According to the bible it was an ark full. Who you gonna believe?

that number is an arkfull of roughly sheep sized animals

What evidence can you provide these babies were not extinct at the time of the flood?

because they were kinds. and Noah put two or seven of every kind on the ark.

 

[dad]

...that number is an arkfull of roughly sheep sized animals

Based on what? Let's face it, science has shed some light on the issue we need to come to grips with. For someone to have picked a number of animals many years ago he thought was on the ark, really is little more than amusing history.

because they were kinds. and Noah put two or seven of every kind on the ark.

Every LIVING kind. Are you suggesting you care to define for us what a biblical 'kind' was??

 

[shinbits]

"Multiple Features enable the fin to prop the body in a limb like manner: the base of the fin is positioned near the ventral surface of the body; glenohumeral architecture and trans-coracoid musculature augment flexion and stability at the shoulder joint; a broad and deep posterior gland allows transmission of substantial propulsive stress through the pectoral girdle; a robust coracoid plate provides broad areas for flexor muscle origins; elaborate ventral processes on the humerus represent extensive surface area for flexor insertions; flexion/extension, pronation/supination and rotation are all possible at the elbow; there is an expanded series of proximal, intermediate and distal radials distal to the epipodials."

typing errors are most likely mine.

of course course that isn't all, but I am not typing the whole papers out.

Thank you Jet, for taking the time to type this.

Actually, physics permits a mathematical calculation of whether legs are likely to support the weight of the body. This is a matter of understanding biological engineering, not a subjective comment based on a quick glance.

This entire paragraph shows why the creature was in fact able to support it's own body. It says "multiple features enable the fin to prop the body in a limb like manner." It then goes on to explain some of these features.

This isn't proof at all that the creatures legs were becoming useless because of evolution. There is obviously design and thought put into it.

 

[Jet Black]

Thank you Jet, for taking the time to type this.

my pleasure and thanks for the courtesy

This isn't proof at all that the creatures legs were becoming useless because of evolution. There is obviously design and thought put into it.

sorry? is there some claim here that the legs are becoming useless?

 

[shinbits]

Do you have any idea just how well suited dophins are for water? And do you know how long a dolphin can go without breathing air?

Not as long as fish.

Well obviously. A dolphin is a mammal. But you're ignoring just how excelently suited this animal is for water.

God has made a creature that is comfortable in water. Dolphins can even sleep underwater.

Dolphins don't really sleep.

They do sleep in some fashion. And when they do, it's underwater.

 

[Jet Black]

Well obviously. A dolphin is a mammal. But you're ignoring just how excelently suited this animal is for water.

lungs?

They do sleep in some fashion. And when they do, it's underwater.

well they do everything underwater so that's hardly a suprise. though as I said, they don't really sleep. they just shut one half of the brain down for a bit and the other half is still awake.

 

[shinbits]

lungs?

The lungs in a dolphin are designed to hold lot's of air, and can sustain the dolphin for a long time before it needs air again.

So yes. Lungs.

well they do everything underwater so that's hardly a suprise. though as I said, they don't really sleep. they just shut one half of the brain down for a bit and the other half is still awake.

It's still a form of sleep.

sorry. is there some claim here that the legs are becoming useless?"

No there isn't. I was thinking of something else at the same time, and typed that in by mistake.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The lungs in a dolphin are designed to hold lot's of air, and can sustain the dolphin for a long time before it needs air again.

At which point it must stop whatever it's doing and breech the surface.

So yes. Lungs.

Despite your inspired defense, it still seems that any aquatic animal capable of drowning is somehow less-than-ideally adapted.

 

[Jet Black]

The lungs in a dolphin are designed to hold lot's of air, and can sustain the dolphin for a long time before it needs air again.

So yes. Lungs.

but even so, lungs are a stupid idea for something that lives underwater. If they have some sort of problem getting back to the surface, that's it, they're dead.

It's still a form of sleep.

no, it's semiconsciousness. they never become fully unconscious like one does when one sleeps.

No there isn't. I was thinking of something else at the same time, and typed that in by mistake.

ok.

 

[shinbits]

but even so, lungs are a stupid idea for something that lives underwater. If they have some sort of problem getting back to the surface, that's it, they're dead.

Saying it's stupid is pure opinion. And again, it's also ignoring the fact that a dolphin's lungs and body are well suited for spending lots of time under water. So even this opinion isn't very substantial, in light of all it's designs to suit it so well for water.

no, it's semiconsciousness. they never become fully unconscious like one does when one sleeps.

It's obviously sleep, which is a necessary function. If it isn't, then why do they do it? What is it's purpose in doing so?

If you can't answer that, then it can only be sleep.

 

[Vermithrax]

God made a full spectrum of creatures. Things died a lot. WE see fossils of some of those things. All are predicted by creation, either directly, or in adaptations. It is predicted as much as Grannydidit baseless so called predictions. And they are baseless, because you can't tie the evolution to the first lifeform in any meaningful way. You would need more than guilt by association.

With all due respect, you are being disingenuous. Creationism makes no predictions. Creationism has never made nor published a single prediction. It is a magic wand that you wave. A discovery like the one in the OP is made, and you say "Creationism predicts this." A shame you can't prove that you made such a prediction. Retroactive predictions are like prophecy after the predicted event. Completely useless.

 

[dlamberth]

According to the bible it was an ark full. Who you gonna believe?

What evidence can you provide these babies were not extinct at the time of the flood?

No one can prove what did not happen. So, because no one can go out and look at the earth's geology and prove a Biblical Flood happened, no one is able to establish a flood timeline to compare with the Dinosaur fossils found.