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.
What do you mean by 'turning into'? Surely you realize that a fossil is dead, it can't do anything. You're asking for something that evolutionary theory does not predict exists.
Either you are playing games, which is way common with evol. defenders when asked uncomfortable Qs, or you don't understand the basic issues. Of course no one is saying the dead fossil turned into anything. However, if you actually understand what evolutionary theory is saying, it is constantly pointing to dead fossils and saying that their descendants
"transitioned", moving onward and upward on Darwin's so called Tree of Life.
I suspect you are never going to answer my Q at the end of my first post to you. I feel sure that if you do and I ask you more Qs that you will dodge them and try to change the subject, with the usual excuses. There may be tons of verbiage, as with Loudmouth, along with the dodges.
But prove me wrong. Answer the Q and I'll respond. Keep trying to change the subject and, sorry, I have better things to do with my time and you will have to be ignored.
Fooled by Nature - Lungfish - YouTube my bad, it can breathe air much longer than I thought. You can check all you like, this is a real creature. If you really wanted to investigate, you could actually find one for yourself and see it with your own eyes.
No, evolution doesn't happen fast enough in large animals like that for us to observe the transition of species.
Actually, that's not what the accepted definition of transitional is. Transitional implies possessing features of both ancestral and derived groups, it does not imply ancestry.
Why the hostility dude? Not trying to change the subject, it's just a complicated question and I want to be sure we're on the same page.
Transitional form? The echidna. It's a mammal that lays eggs. Possesses both ancestral and derived features.
No, evolution doesn't happen fast enough in large animals like that for us to observe the transition of species. However, it does prove that a fish could evolve to walk on land and be in water, because the creature exists. You aren't going to get any closer than that to getting what you define as a "transitional" creature, even though it has been explained several times that a transitional creature is just a creature with characteristics of two or more species that exists in between the time frame that said species existed in. But if you want, you can look to bacteria, they evolve fast enough that literally you could observe the gradual change, so long as you isolate the bacterial population for study and, say, turn up,the heat in the container slowly, you will end up with a new species of bacteria that have a much higher resistance to heat than the ancestor bacteria, probably within a year.
Okay ... first off, I'm not versed in evolutionary theory, b/c to be honest, it's not a topic that often interests me. I'm also not versed in the various creationary interpretations for somewhat the same reason. In other words, I am generally more interested in other areas of study. So I'm a *casual reader*. So my qualifier in all that I'm saying here, is that I'm not defending or attacking any specific POV. I'm a casual reader, with casual knowledge. I know whose in the Super Bowl, but I probably won't watch it because I just don't care that much ... something along those linesAre you saying the lungish is a transition? Check out evolutionary literature on that on Google. See how many evolutionists are actually saying it is a transition. Name one. Not one who hedges with "might be...could be...maybe...likely...probably..." either. Name an actual evolution believing scientist who says the lungish is a "transition." I don't think you will find any such thing.
You yourself said it. You said it is a species of fish. That's what it is. You have....faith....based on evolutionary theory, that somehow some way, some day its descendants are going to turn into....frogs?
Sorry, it would need far more changes that those you see for that.
I already went over the subject of how fish can use their fins in unusual ways, as with the so called walking catfish and the so called flying fish. No one is calling them transitions. No one, even evolutionists, are saying their fins are turning into feet or wings. As far as air, it is not uncommon for fish to use air from the surface, for examples Neons suck air there. But they aren't developing air breathing lungs.
Give me the name of the scientist I requested with your reference to check on Google. Pick a true science site, not something like Wiki, where anyone can post anything, or something like Talk Origins which is not really based on a science magazine or university but is just spouting off its spin.
Before you believe, before you defend what you believe to others, do your research.
Okay ... first off, I'm not versed in evolutionary theory, b/c to be honest, it's not a topic that often interests me. I'm also not versed in the various creationary interpretations for somewhat the same reason. In other words, I am generally more interested in other areas of study. So I'm a *casual reader*. So my qualifier in all that I'm saying here, is that I'm not defending or attacking any specific POV. I'm a casual reader, with casual knowledge. I know whose in the Super Bowl, but I probably won't watch it because I just don't care that much ... something along those lines
Having said that, and going almost entirely off of what I'm reading here in this thread between the various sides ...
I gather that a transitional form is one that has characteristics of what the average laymen would consider different species of animals. A reptile with feathers, a mammal with gills, etc. Based on what the evolutionists are saying here, their existence doesn't necessarily mean they predict what they will become later ... yes ? Evolutionary theory only predicts they will exist in some form between groups. In other words, a dinosaur with feathers may exist at some point ... but may not "become anything else", in other words.
What you are saying, is that any creature that appears to be a transitional animal "is what it is". In other words, a dinosaur with feathers is just a dinosaur with feathers. It doesn't mean it's a transition between reptiles and birds, "it is what it is". Once a dino with feathers, always a dino with feathers. It won't eventually become a stork, in other words. Yes ?
So when I look at an archaeopteryx, what would you say it was ? How did it originate ? Or this lungfish ? Remember I'm a laymen ... I'm asking for your input, not your stance so I can attack it. I'm asking questions to understand the sides.
Now ... one who supports evolutionary theory, how did the archaeopteryx originate ?
You limit the definition of species, thinking that evolution necessarily has to be as drastic as the difference between a fish and a bird. But, whatever, stop bothering to post here, your comments are uninteresting and insulting, and clearly you will,never give any of these ideas actual attention or respect. So leave, you never wanted to believe any different anyway, so why bother? You don't care about how evolution works, you just want it not to work. Well, I am done attempting to have meaningful communication with a disrespectful, uninformed individual such as yourself.I went over bacteria a few posts ago. Bacteria stay bacteria. That's the evidence from the so called Cambrian times to now. I went over the fact that a new species does not show evolution. More than once.
You are not bothering to do the research on the lung fish. If you don't care any more than that, perhaps this is a waste of time for us both. I am repeating myself over and over and you are evading science and logic based Qs. You can do far better than that Sarah. But I won't know as this will be my last post to you. If you haven't "gotten it" by now, and you have not, I still have hope that you will in the future. IF you do your research and learn to think using YOUR mind, and YOUR common sense.
Bye!
a transitional form would be one which shows a reptile turning into a bird, a bird turning into a mammal, an ape turning into a man etc.
But, in spite of how evolutionary literature tries to spin it, all we see in the countless billions of fossils are fish staying fish, birds staying birds, etc.
Richard Dawkins says we came from bacteria. So, some evoltuionists will claim ev-er-y-thing is a transitional form. Problem. We have bacteria going back to the so called Cambrian era. Yes, bacteria can be fossilized. We have bacteria being studied around the clock d & n 24/7 by countless scientists and others. Uh, what ev-i-dence do we have that any bacteria anywhere at any time every has been or ever will be anything but bacteria?
None. But we get a spin on that truth. We're told, "Look! Bacteria are changing in response to antibiotics! See! Evolution is proven.' But...they are still just as much bacteria as they ever were.
They do another spin - all of evolution is spin + logical fallacies+ presumptions presentred as fact - and tell you "Look! Bacteria have learned to eat nylon! Nylonaise bacteria prove evolution. Case closed!"
But...they too are still just bacteria.
Change does happen. Evolutionists wants you to believe that all change is evolution. Then when you see change they can say, "Look! See we told you there is evolution." But change only happens within limits.
You show me a transitional fossil that matches what is on Darwin's chart. Show me something that is turning from a fish into a tetrapod, something that shows me a bird turning into a reptile.
Now kindly answer my original Q. Pick anything on Darwin's so called Tree of Life and give me a so called transitional form between one "less evolved" animal on the tree and one "more evolved" animal - someting which you can defend with actual data.
You say the echidna is a transition. What evidence do you have that it hasn't always been just what it looks like, an echidna.
Give me your data to show that the echidna's ancestors or descendants were ever significantly different from those seen today. I believe you may find some of larger size, as gigantism was common in the distant past, but that is all you will be able to present as evidence for any significant changes. With no evidence there is no science. When presumptions are presented as fact we have not science but pseudo science.
I'd like you to answer another Q. Find an evolution believing scientist from a true science site.
Not Talk Origins which is not based on a true science magazine or university source, not Wiki which can come from any source on the planet. Find an actual scientific source, a scientific magazine or university where they will say that echidna is a transitions without the use of the words "maybe...probably....likely...it seems...must have....could have....millions of [untestable, unverifiable] years ago". I.e. find something not based on theorizing only.
What evidence are they giving you that the echidna has ever been or ever will be anything than one of nature's many, many anomalies, from start to finish?
Yes I think I'm following you. Correct me if my understanding of what you're saying is wrong (and I knew my wolf to chihuahua wasn't a direct parallel since it's an example of artificial selection, I brought it up because the OP did in a post, etc):In the same manner a wolf became a dog (with the exception of selection being natural instead of artificial) , but over a longer time frame. The argument about transition fossil not being ancestral is due to the fact that we have no idea whether any particular fossil species even had descendants, lacking DNA analysis.
A transitional fossil COULD be ancestral, but it is not necessary. The fossil COULD be a cousin of the line that actually produced an extant species.
Obviously, there certainly would have to be ancestral species, but nothing guarantees that these species were preserved in the fossil record.
Make sense? It's kind of a difficult concept to explain.
A transitional form is predicted by evolutionary theory, but the existence of one doesn't prove one way or another that such a form is the direct descendant of another form, nor that it had it's own descendants. It produces a puzzle that suggests it, but apart from more substantial analysis (DNA comparison, etc), it cannot be shown conclusively.
IOW ... analogy ... in trying to complete the puzzle, we can look at the missing pieces and go, "Hmm .... the piece that should go there would most likely look this way and that, and have such and such characteristics, based on the other pieces around it," ... and we can actually FIND pieces that fit what we're looking for.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?