• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jet Black said:
gosh, put those goalposts back, this is the third time today I have caught you moving them! Lets go back to what you were saying, and what I was replying to. see you were saying that


and I was demonstrating that your claim there was wrong, by giving observational evidence. You see? direct observational evidence that what you are saying doesn't happen does in fact happen.
Push goal posts back? This is directly related to what you've said. You gave observational evidence that animals move from one area to another: one of the animals you mentioned is an animal that already has legs and comfortably breathes air; but that isn't a good example to use if we're talking about an animal that can do neither of these things, which in this case, are the animals which allegedly are the ones which came out of the sea.

I've never pushed any goal posts back; that's directly related to what you've said. As for the other thread, I explained that I made a mistake, and then directly replied replied to your post.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
shinbits said:
From talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

"As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer."


So if fossils are rare, and thier discovery is rarer, then how rare would fossils used to prove evolution from form to another ? Those fossils are known as transitional fossils, and are extremely rare.

shinbits, now you are quote mining. look at the context in which that is put. It is talking in terms of the total number of fossils of all the animals that ever existed in response to the claim that there should be billions of transitionals and tens of thousands found.

Futhermore, at no point does it actually claim that there are not very many fossils, or that there are hardly any transitionals. there are lots of both.

Add to that, I'm afraid that all you are doing is ignoring the things that we do find. I'll go for another example (you can tell that I am a physicist) Neutrinos are extremely common, and I mean disgustingly common. There are millions of neutrinos streaking through you every second. But experiments like Super Kamiokande hardly ever detect them, despite being huge machines devoted to detection of neutrinos. But the point is, that we do detect neutrinos, and the rarity of neutrinos is down to the properties of neutrinos and our detection methods, and not down to the idea that neutrinos do not exist. When we do spot neutrinos, we find they have the properties that we expect. The same is true for the fossils. when we do find them, many have the kinds of properties that do indeed categorise them as intermediates.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jet Black said:
shinbits, now you are quote mining. look at the context in which that is put. It is talking in terms of the total number of fossils of all the animals that ever existed in response to the claim that there should be billions of transitionals and tens of thousands found.
No it isn't. The entire link explains in detail why fossils are rare.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
shinbits said:
Push goal posts back? This is directly related to what you've said. You gave observational evidence that animals move from one area to another: one of the animals you mentioned is an animal that already has legs and comfortably breathes air; but that isn't a good example to use if we're talking about an animal that can do neither of these things, which in this case, are the animals which allegedly are the ones which came out of the sea.
you know I mentioned fish are found in these pools too. and they will flop around if they find themselves getting marooned. You've never seen this?
I've never pushed any goal posts back; that's directly related to what you've said. As for the other thread, I explained that I made a mistake, and then directly replied replied to your post.

yes, you moved the goalposts, because we were talking about things like fish finding themselves out of water, or in water that was drying up, and you claimed that this didn't happen. It happens.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jet Black said:
you know I mentioned fish are found in these pools too. and they will flop around if they find themselves getting marooned. You've never seen this?
I've seen fish flop around, both in real life and on TV. Fish can not move more then a few inches from by way of flopping around. This will NOT get them to some new location where there's water.

IF THEY COULD move more then a few inches when they flop around, there is no way to control which way they are moving. Thier flopping around would only lead them in circles or random places.

Also, if they could direct where they go, the frenzied rate at which they flop around would tire them out very quickly; that on top of the fact that fish to not take in enough oxygen through thier gills. Thier frenzied motions on top of the fact that they are getting less oxygen then they need will tire them out before they could even move a few feet.

Flopping around is only a desperation move to either escape land dwelling predators like humans or bears or other animals. This doesn't prove your theory of how water-dwelling animals could've developed lungs at all.
 
Upvote 0

MewtwoX

Veteran
Dec 11, 2005
1,402
73
38
Ontario, Canada
✟17,246.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Also, if they could direct where they go, the frenzied rate at which they flop around would tire them out very quickly; that on top of the fact that fish to not take in enough oxygen through thier gills. Thier frenzied motions on top of the fact that they are getting less oxygen then they need will tire them out before they could even move a few feet.

Flopping around is only a desperation move to either escape land dwelling predators like humans or bears or other animals. This doesn't prove your theory of how water-dwelling animals could've developed lungs at all.


I would think this to be the whole point around selective pressures to develop an analogue (and eventually, a real) set of lungs to breathe outside of water.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MewtwoX said:
[/u][/i]

I would think this to be the whole point around selective pressures to develop an analogue (and eventually, a real) set of lungs to breathe outside of water.
I see what you're saying. But my point is that the fish wouldn't even get to that point. That would be either because they'd get eaten or die shortly after they were no longer in water. They wouldn't live long enough to be able to pass on genes that contribute to evolving in response to that adaptive pressure.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
shinbits said:
I see what you're saying. But my point is that the fish wouldn't even get to that point. That would be either because they'd get eaten
eaten by what?
or die shortly after they were no longer in water.
ony death is not instant. those that live longer pass on their genes.
They wouldn't live long enough to be able to pass on genes that contribute to evolving in response to that adaptive pressure.

those that did live long enough would.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
GoSeminoles! said:
Is there something else lifeforms do besides eat, avoid predators, and reproduce?
The assumptions being made are things like how they ate, how they reproduced, and how they escaped predators.

Those are nothing but pure assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jet Black said:
eaten by what?
By the same predators that you all have assumed existed.

those that did live long enough would.
That is another assumption, that that there would even be survivors of such a perilous ordeal of being out of water, not being eaten, and actually being able to transport themselves to another area with water, even though they are not suited to do so.

These all just wild assumptions.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
shinbits said:
I've seen fish flop around, both in real life and on TV. Fish can not move more then a few inches from by way of flopping around. This will NOT get them to some new location where there's water.
well they can move more than a few inches. Fish can survive for some minutes out of water.
IF THEY COULD move more then a few inches when they flop around, there is no way to control which way they are moving. Thier flopping around would only lead them in circles or random places.
so? some of them would make it to water though wouldn't it? you also have a selective pressure there for being able to direct their morion better :)
Also, if they could direct where they go, the frenzied rate at which they flop around would tire them out very quickly;
again, they can flop around for minutes at a time.
that on top of the fact that fish to not take in enough oxygen through thier gills. Thier frenzied motions on top of the fact that they are getting less oxygen then they need will tire them out before they could even move a few feet.
that is kind of bizarre, since we are talking about the evolution of features that allow them to take in more oxygen while out of water. The point is, that those that take in more oxygen while out of water will live longer and be more likely to find some more water. It doesn'T have to be enough oxygen to survive indefinitely, just enough to last a bit longer.
Flopping around is only a desperation move to either escape land dwelling predators like humans or bears or other animals.
no it isn't.
This doesn't prove your theory of how water-dwelling animals could've developed lungs at all.
dude, we're talking about your claims that fish don't ever find themselved marooned away from deep water. keep with the flow here. I mentioned the fish in rock pools principally because they are a demonstration of exactly the kind of thing you are saying doesn't happen. see in areas where there are rock pools, there are big ones and little ones, all spread around the place. when the tide drops, the fish might find themselves in any of said rock pools. some of the little ones will dry out quickly. so when there is not enough water, those fish that do flop around stand a chance of getting to another pool, and those that do not will just die. so the genes for not flopping die quickly. now it is a matter of how long, and whether the fish can direct themselves or not. those fish that are more able will get to pools more often than those that do not.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
shinbits said:
By the same predators that you all have assumed existed.
you're the one assuming predators here, now me.
That is another assumption, that that there would even be survivors of such a perilous ordeal of being out of water,
but fish do survive the "perilous ordeal of water all the time" have you got some evidence that fish in the past are different, and they just instantly keel over and die the second they are out of the water
not being eaten,
eaten by what? you brought the predators in, not me.
and actually being able to transport themselves to another area with water, even though they are not suited to do so.
fish do do this. Do you have some evidence that fish in the past somehow behaved differently and just lay there waiting for the grim reaper?
These all just wild assumptions.

they aren't wild assumptions. they are things that happen now. It's you that has the strange idea that fish in the past got eaten by non existant predators, died the instant they are exposed to air or lie down patiently waiting for their passage to the big goldfish bowl in the sky.
 
Upvote 0

futzman

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2005
527
18
71
✟771.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jet Black said:
When we do spot neutrinos, we find they have the properties that we expect. The same is true for the fossils. when we do find them, many have the kinds of properties that do indeed categorise them as intermediates.

I think that is worth repeating. When we find fossils, they have properties we expect and that conform to evolutionary theory. This is a FACT largely missed by and almost completely ignored by ID/Creationists.

Futz
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
shinbits said:
The assumptions being made are things like how they ate, how they reproduced, and how they escaped predators.

Those are nothing but pure assumptions.
It is not all based on assumptions. We have the transitional animals that show how the transition from water to land occurred, e.g. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega (and others). Acanthostega is basically a fish with legs.

From: http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html)

Perhaps the most important findings to alter our understanding of tetrapods evolution followed the discovery and analysis of Acanthostega in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A skull roof of this tetrapod was first discovered by Gunar Säve-Söderbergh and Erik Jarvik in 1933, but the significance of this animal was not realized until after additional material was recovered by Jenny Clack in 1987. Together with Michael Coates, Clack realized that this animal was clearly a tetrapod, but that it was a poor excuse for a land animal. Its legs were ill suited to support its weight and the wrists were absent. Yet, it sported well developed digits (fingers and toes). Surprisingly, the forelimbs possessed eight digits rather than the anticipated five digits, while the hindlimbs possessed seven.

Additional features from the spine, ribs, pelvis and tail corroborated the notion that Acanthostega would not be able to support itself on land. Since it was essentially contemporaneous with the apparently more terrestrial Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, like modern-day dolphins and whales, may have secondarily lost the skeletal features needed for life on land. This possibility, however, is undermined by the presence of internal fish-like gills. (It also breathed with its lungs.) Acanthostega, with its four limbs, pelvic girdle and assorted other features, was clearly a tetrapod, but it probably never left the water.

It is certainly not hard to understand how a fish with legs could evolve into species that were more terrestrial than aquatic. The question of what ecological pressures led to this transition does require a certain level of speculation. However, the fact that this transition did occur is certainly not based on speculation.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jet Black said:
so? some of them would make it to water though wouldn't it?
Some could make it to a shallow pool of water. But then they'd be easy targets for predators since they have no where to escape to. If not that, they'd starve since their is no food source in that shallow pool of water, unless of course, you assume it got luck, and that there is some food there. But even so, it takes time for rivers to be full of water again, so even that very limited food source would deplete in only a few minutes, and the fish would starve, especially since it waisted so much energy flopping around to even find that pool.

Evolution asks you to make some hard assumptions.

that is kind of bizarre, since we are talking about the evolution of features that allow them to take in more oxygen while out of water.
Another reason why it's silly to believe evolution. If a fish didn't even develop something that would help it to breath out water, then it would basically die in only a few short moments out of the water, at most, maybe a minute.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
shinbits said:
Some could make it to a shallow pool of water. But then they'd be easy targets for predators since they have no where to escape to.
what predators?
If not that, they'd starve since their is no food source in that shallow pool of water, unless of course, you assume it got luck, and that there is some food there.
many pools would have food in them. you're the one relying on the assumption that no pools have food.
But even so, it takes time for rivers to be full of water again, so even that very limited food source would deplete in only a few minutes, and the fish would starve, especially since it waisted so much energy flopping around to even find that pool.
you are assuming that it would only be able to find a very small pool. you can get quite complex exosystems even in just a garden pond.
Evolution asks you to make some hard assumptions.
you're the one making all the assumptions now, and really bad ones too. like instant death, fish refusing to move when they find themselves out of water, terrestrial predators, pools with no food in them, only tiny little pools.
Another reason why it's silly to believe evolution. If a fish didn't even develop something that would help it to breath out water, then it would basically die in only a few short moments out of the water, at most, maybe a minute.
how odd, we are actually talking here about the pressures on fish that live in a particular sort of environment. Fish can breathe out of water, but just not very well at all. I have already mentioned that what they would need is a thin moist membrane over which water can pass (not hard now) and then increased invaginations of said membrane. these are only small and incremental things that would allow a fish to live outside water for just a little bit longer.
 
Upvote 0

Pure_in_Heart

Active Member
Jul 1, 2005
174
1
✟309.00
Faith
Christian
dlamberth said:
NEW YORK - Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals.
...
LOL! A typical eisegesis! Asserting an infrequent ancient amphibian as a fish, an infrequent ancient reptile as a bird, that is how the evolutionary theory obtains its "fossil evidences"! :D
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Pure_in_Heart said:
LOL! A typical eisegesis! Asserting an infrequent ancient amphibian as a fish, an infrequent ancient reptile as a bird, that is how the evolutionary theory obtains its "fossil evidences"! :D

oh look, someone who isn't paying attention and doing nothing more than skimming headlines.

do some reading and then come back. if all you have to offer is tripe like this, then just don't bother ok?
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Split Rock said:
It is not all based on assumptions. We have the transitional animals that show how the transition from water to land occurred, e.g. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega (and others). Acanthostega is basically a fish with legs.
first of all, you're assuming that evolution is a fact, and therefor transtional forms actually exist. You have to be careful of that. But let's look at the quote:

Its legs were ill suited to support its weight and the wrists were absent.
The term "ill suited" is a subjective comment here. If we look at the skeleton of a seal, it can apear to be ill-suited for life on land and be mistaken for a transitional form. But we know that seals can actually be quite fast on land. Looking at it from the creation standpoint, that woudn't be the seals main purpose anyway; it's mainly a land animal.

The same thought can easily be applied to this creature that was discovered.

Yet, it sported well developed digits (fingers and toes). Surprisingly, the forelimbs possessed eight digits rather than the anticipated five digits, while the hindlimbs possessed seven."
Again, from a creation stand point, those digits are to help it move better on land. Since we have many examples of sea creatures that spend some time on land, this is a perfectly sound conclusion.



Split Rock said:
The question of what ecological pressures led to this transition does require a certain level of speculation. However, the fact that this transition did occur is certainly not based on speculation.
The thought that transitionals did occur is pure speculation. The trans forms to support it are extremely rare if any even exist for this creature.
 
Upvote 0