Give your best "transitional form"

[Job 33:6]

It is disturbing to find that it is the atheists who support your research, more than your own fellow Christians.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

It is disturbing to find that it is the atheists who support your research, more than your own fellow Christians.

Sadly, I've noticed that atheists on average tend to be better people in general than people who identify as Christian.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think something is being missed here. A transition between, for example, a cow and a giraffe, exists. Exactly one exists, and that is the shared common ancestor. There are fossils that show the development of one lineage over time to look more like giraffes and there are fossils of the other developing over time to look like cattle. There are no fossils, except for that common ancestor, that sort of resemble both. And that common ancestor probably has a few traits that neither have, because those traits were bred out of both lineages. Heck, there could even be a trait or two that it lacks but that both lineages developed independently, though it would almost certainly be coded differently in their DNA.

Show me that common ancestor in any of the claimed splits on any evolutionary tree.

The reality is that you have imaginary lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors creating your imaginary links.

Just as if I incorrectly labeled the Husky and Mastiff as separate species, then looked at the Chinook, one would draw imaginary lines back to imaginary common ancestors, or one would have gaps between the Mastiff and Chinnnok or the Husky and Chinook with no intermediaries in existence because they never existed in the first place. All because I had a preconcieved belief A evolved into C when in reality A simply mated with B and C appeared suddenly in the record where it never existed before.

And all the while the Husky remained Husky, the Mastiff remained Mastiff, just as is observed with every single animal in the fossil record. They one and all remain the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

My children will be the same species as me, their children the same species as them, on and on and on and on, and never will the species change. That someone 100,000 years from now might incorrectly label me as a separate species, would be nothing but a mistake from preconcieved beliefs. Reality dictates that belief in species change is false, as children are always the same species as their direct parents, and their children are the same species as them. On and on and on until the end of time. That some incorrectly label those in the past is a classification error, not reality.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

Show me that common ancestor in any of the claimed splits on any evolutionary tree.

The reality is that you have imaginary lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors creating your imaginary links.

Just as if I incorrectly labeled the Husky and Mastiff as separate species, then looked at the Chinook, one would draw imaginary lines back to imaginary common ancestors, or one would have gaps between the Mastiff and Chinnnok or the Husky and Chinook with no intermediaries in existence because they never existed in the first place. All because I had a preconcieved belief A evolved into C when in reality A simply mated with B and C appeared suddenly in the record where it never existed before.

And all the while the Husky remained Husky, the Mastiff remained Mastiff, just as is observed with every single animal in the fossil record. They one and all remain the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

Oh okay, so there are just a bunch of extinct species that happen to all be very similar? It's just a coincidence that they can be put in a nested hierarchy without anomalies? Or are you suggesting that Tiktaalik was the result of a frog mating with a fish? That's what your example seems to imply.

Also, nobody, absolutely nobody, believes that one species can evolve into another while both exist. They don't believe that A evolved into B and C. They believe that A split into groups B and C, which are genetically distinct. So A still exists, but it exists as two species. And if someone says A evolved into B, then that means that the ancient A population and the current A population are so different that they call the current A population B.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

My children will be the same species as me, their children the same species as them, on and on and on and on, and never will the species change. That someone 100,000 years from now might incorrectly label me as a separate species, would be nothing but a mistake from preconcieved beliefs. Reality dictates that belief in species change is false, as children are always the same species as their direct parents, and their children are the same species as them. On and on and on until the end of time. That some incorrectly label those in the past is a classification error, not reality.

That's what evolutionary biologists believe too. For example, the chimpanzee was recently determined to have speciated. There are now two species, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo, but both are considered chimpanzee. Or the African elephant, which is now two species. The African bush elephant and the African forest elephant are both still African elephants.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh okay, so there are just a bunch of extinct species that happen to all be very similar? It's just a coincidence that they can be put in a nested hierarchy without anomalies? Or are you suggesting that Tiktaalik was the result of a frog mating with a fish? That's what your example seems to imply.

Also, nobody, absolutely nobody, believes that one species can evolve into another while both exist. They don't believe that A evolved into B and C. They believe that A split into groups B and C, which are genetically distinct. So A still exists, but it exists as two species. And if someone says A evolved into B, then that means that the ancient A population and the current A population are so different that they call the current A population B.

Aside from Tiktaalik being a transitional with scales, fin rays, and gills (fish like), but also eyes on the top of its head, mobile neck, and lungs (amphibian like), there is also the question for YECs of how tiktaalik was found. The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron). Nobody had explored the rock tiktaalik was found in. Rather, the rock was selected by looking at a geologic map that identified rock of a particular age. That and it was discovered in rock of a particular type formed by freshwater deposits (nor marine or igneous or terrestrial or metamorphic etc.).

Young Earth Creationists just cant explain something like this.

But old earth creationists, or people who recognized biological evolution and an old earth can, with ease.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Justatruthseeker

Do you have an explanation for how the discovery of tiktaalik was made through predictions based on the fossil succession?

"Aside from Tiktaalik being a transitional with scales, fin rays, and gills (fish like), but also eyes on the top of its head, mobile neck, and lungs (amphibian like), there is also the question for YECs of how tiktaalik was found. The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron). Nobody had explored the rock tiktaalik was found in. Rather, the rock was selected by looking at a geologic map that identified rock of a particular age. That and it was discovered in rock of a particular type formed by freshwater deposits (nor marine or igneous or terrestrial or metamorphic etc.).

Young Earth Creationists just cant explain something like this.

But old earth creationists, or people who recognized biological evolution and an old earth can, with ease."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh okay, so there are just a bunch of extinct species that happen to all be very similar? It's just a coincidence that they can be put in a nested hierarchy without anomalies? Or are you suggesting that Tiktaalik was the result of a frog mating with a fish? That's what your example seems to imply.

I'll ask again, show me one single common ancestor. The fact is you can't, on any of your claimed links.

I'm suggesting Tiktaalik was a seperate species all on its own. You require that you draw imaginary links to an imaginary common ancestor, not me. I accept the facts as is. It is you that draws those imaginary lines because of your preconceived beliefs. Besides, if those footprints turn out to be valid, then tiktaalik wasn't a transitional link to anything.

Also, nobody, absolutely nobody, believes that one species can evolve into another while both exist.

And yet they claim 16 species of finch all existing at the same time.... and 3 of them evolving back into one..... your claims don't match their claims....

They don't believe that A evolved into B and C. They believe that A split into groups B and C, which are genetically distinct. So A still exists, but it exists as two species. And if someone says A evolved into B, then that means that the ancient A population and the current A population are so different that they call the current A population B.

Except their was no evolution. A mated with B and produced C. Why believe A split into B and C when the only way you have seen variation occur in the species is when A mates with B and produces C. The Asian does not split into the Afro-Asian. The Asian mates with the African and produces the Afro-Asian.

Even your messed up classification of equines shows the lie. The horse mates with the donkey and produces the mule. The horse does not split into the donkey or the mule. So you want to label the mule as a separate species, fine, so accept how the mule comes about and quit pretending anything split to make it.....

How do you know they were genetically distinct since you have not one speck of DNA from any fossil? Is this another one of those imaginary things we are to take as fact, that some similar fossils were genetically distinct because you want them to be?

And your own claim shows the lie, since those Finches are so genetically similar DNA analyses was unable to distinguish between them. Hasn't stopped them from continuing the lie about them being separate species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@Justatruthseeker

Do you have an explanation for how the discovery of tiktaalik was made through predictions based on the fossil succession?

"Aside from Tiktaalik being a transitional with scales, fin rays, and gills (fish like), but also eyes on the top of its head, mobile neck, and lungs (amphibian like), there is also the question for YECs of how tiktaalik was found. The fact that it was found in devonian rock of a specific age, not any devonian rock, but specific devonian rock of an age younger than historic fish like tetrapods (like acanthostega and ichthyostega) and older than amphibian like fish (eusthenopteron). Nobody had explored the rock tiktaalik was found in. Rather, the rock was selected by looking at a geologic map that identified rock of a particular age. That and it was discovered in rock of a particular type formed by freshwater deposits (nor marine or igneous or terrestrial or metamorphic etc.).

Young Earth Creationists just cant explain something like this.

But old earth creationists, or people who recognized biological evolution and an old earth can, with ease."

But since you ignore that God stretched out the heavens and acceleration took place, then ignore science which tells you clocks slow under acceleration...... then refuse to apply time dilation corrections..... of course you believe that rocks are billions of years old when it is simply because radioactive decay occurred faster in the past than it does today.... but since you use the slower rate of radioactive decay today, you of course get the wrong answer.

And yes, I know all about how it's just magical expanding nothing and that objects are magically increasing in distance at an accelerating rate without actually increasing in velocity. Even if we were to draw dots on your balloon, blow it up, we would measure each dot accelerating away from every other dot. Even if in real life we have never observed space magically expanding in any laboratory. In real life when two objects increase in distance at an accelerating rate it's called acceleration. Yes, a concept that doesn't require magic so is unacceptable.

Even if that's exactly what is required by Hubbles law is the very acceleration you deny. So by denying acceleration to avoid having to admit to needing to apply time dilation corrections, you can no longer calculate the distance to any object by its redshift value, which discounts any claimed age for the universe.

Hubble law and the expanding universe

"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."

So by refusing to accept their recessional velocity you remove that direct correlation leading to their distance.

 

[Job 33:6]

But since you ignore that God stretched out the heavens and acceleration took place, then ignore science which tells you clocks slow under acceleration...... then refuse to apply time dilation corrections..... of course you believe that rocks are billions of years old when it is simply because radioactive decay occurred faster in the past than it does today.... but since you use the slower rate of radioactive decay today, you of course get the wrong answer.

This doesnt make any sense. If decay rates were sped up, they would not correlate in dating of rock.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's what evolutionary biologists believe too. For example, the chimpanzee was recently determined to have speciated. There are now two species, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo, but both are considered chimpanzee. Or the African elephant, which is now two species. The African bush elephant and the African forest elephant are both still African elephants.

That's because you incorrectly label separate subspecies of one species as different species. We have already shown you all refuse to follow your own scientific definitions.

Bonobo-chimpanzee Hybrids - Mammalian Hybrids

Definition of SPECIES

"a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding,"

Definition of SUBSPECIES

"a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs
b : a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species"

Don't ask me to ignore the scientific definitions because you and they do simply to promote your false theory.

So no, it isn't what they believe too, or else they would correctly label them as the same species, just different subspecies of the same species. Don't even pretend they believe the truth when clearly they promote the lie...

 

[LutheranGuy123]

I'll ask again, show me one single common ancestor. The fact is you can't, on any of your claimed links.

I'm suggesting Tiktaalik was a seperate species all on its own. You require that you draw imaginary links to an imaginary common ancestor, not me. I accept the facts as is. It is you that draws those imaginary lines because of your preconceived beliefs. Besides, if those footprints turn out to be valid, then tiktaalik wasn't a transitional link to anything.



And yet they claim 16 species of finch all existing at the same time.... and 3 of them evolving back into one..... your claims don't match their claims....



Except their was no evolution. A mated with B and produced C. Why believe A split into B and C when the only way you have seen variation occur in the species is when A mates with B and produces C. The Asian does not split into the Afro-Asian. The Asian mates with the African and produces the Afro-Asian.

Even your messed up classification of equines shows the lie. The horse mates with the donkey and produces the mule. The horse does not split into the donkey or the mule. So you want to label the mule as a separate species, fine, so accept how the mule comes about and quit pretending anything split to make it.....

How do you know they were genetically distinct since you have not one speck of DNA from any fossil? Is this another one of those imaginary things we are to take as fact, that some similar fossils were genetically distinct because you want them to be?

And your own claim shows the lie, since those Finches are so genetically similar DNA analyses was unable to distinguish between them. Hasn't stopped them from continuing the lie about them being separate species.

If three finch "species" converged into one, then they were not species. They were subspecies, which is like what breeds of dog are. Species cannot converge into one group without human intervention. Also the mule is not a species. It is a hybrid between two species. And the reason they remain separate species despite being able to breed is that their offspring can't breed.

Now you could claim that all of the extinct species we know of are unrelated and existed without evolution, but then you have to explain how millions of species, all larger than a breadbox (let's ignore the small ones, even though they make the problem worse) could all exist at the same time, over such large areas, and with enough individuals to maintain a breeding population. There just isn't enough space on Earth for all of them at once. Unless you want to say there were multiple creation events, species had to develop over time to look vastly different. And if that's possible, why can't they split lineages?

 

[LutheranGuy123]

That's because you incorrectly label separate subspecies of one species as different species. We have already shown you refuse to follow your own scientific definitions.

Bonobo-chimpanzee Hybrids - Mammalian Hybrids

Definition of SPECIES

"a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding,"

Don't ask me to ignore the scientific definitions because you and they do simply to promote your false theory.

So no, it isn't what they believe too, or else they would correctly label them as the same species, just different subspecies of the same species. Don't even pretend they believe the truth when clearly they promote the lie...

Potentially capable of interbreeding is right in the definition. What part of that definition makes you not accept them as separate species?

 

[Job 33:6]

But since you ignore that God stretched out the heavens and acceleration took place, then ignore science which tells you clocks slow under acceleration...... then refuse to apply time dilation corrections..... of course you believe that rocks are billions of years old when it is simply because radioactive decay occurred faster in the past than it does today.... but since you use the slower rate of radioactive decay today, you of course get the wrong answer.

To clarify, different radioactive dating methods use different elements with different decay rates.

http://www.nuclear-power.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Table_decay_half-live.png

So lets say you have an object, dated independently using 2 or more isotopes, and the dating methods yielded the same result. The K-T boundary has been dated numerous times using different isotopes from samples all over the world that have correlated to 65 million years old, so this isnt hypothetical.

So, already we have a "coincidence" that young earthers could not explain, but lets say hypothetically we sped our decay rates up. So, carbon for example runs at 5000 or so years per half life, while radium is 1600.

So, lets say we have an object that is 2500 years old. You would have carbon that has underwent 0.5 of a half life and radium that has undergone a little under 1.54 half lives.

But, lets say you sped the decay rates up. Lets say 10 times faster for both. Ok, that means the carbon half life would be 500 years and the radium half life would be 160.

At those decay rates, in order for carbon and radium to match up with the 2500 year old age, carbon would have to undergo 5 half lives (instead of 0.5). While radium would undergone 15.62 half lives (instead of 1.54).

So now lets compare the before and after. For carbon, we have a 0.5 half life to 5.0 half lives.
For radium we have 1.54 half lives to 15.62 half lives.

0.5/1.54=0.324
5.0/15.62=0.320

If you kept your parent to daughter ratio the same, then your final ages for each method would come out different.

If decay rates change, it follows suit that the proportions of daughter to parent atoms change as well. So, if you change decay rates, the analytical results would not match up as they do.

But because they do match up, we know that they have not changed.

Therefore, this idea that decay rates were sped up and slowed down doesnt mathematically make any sense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This doesnt make any sense. If decay rates were sped up, they would not correlate in dating of rock.

They don't correlate, you date those rocks by decay. So if the decay rate was faster in the past you would get an older age than reality by using the slower decay rate of today.

What are you correlating the age of rocks too? Decay rates?

So if as acceleration increased and clocks and decay rates slowed, then in the past clocks and decay rates were faster. One can not slow unless it was once faster.

But by using the slower observed rate today, you imagine billions of years, when since radioactive decay rates occurred faster, by using slower assumptions you require longer than it actually took.

For example if a substance has a half life of say 10 years, and it was decaying at a rate of a 5 year halflife in the past, then you would believe more time had passed then actually had from the amount of observed decay.

But that's what happens when people ignore science and refuse to adjust for time dilation.

 

[Job 33:6]

They don't correlate, you date those rocks by decay. So if the decay rate was faster in the past you would get an older age than reality by using the slower decay rate of today.

What are you correlating the age of rocks too? Decay rates?

So if as acceleration increased and clocks and decay rates slowed, then in the past clocks and decay rates were faster. One can not slow unless it was once faster.

But by using the slower observed rate today, you imagine billions of years, when since radioactive decay rates occurred faster, by using slower assumptions you require longer than it actually took.

For example if a substance has a half life of say 10 years, and it was decaying at a rate of a 5 year halflife in the past, then you would believe more time had passed then actually had from the amount of observed decay.

But that's what happens when people ignore science and refuse to adjust for time dilation.

I dont think I was clear in my first post. Let me try again.

So, we have rocks that are dated by multiple radioactive methods.

Each radioactive method has its own unique exponential rate of decay.

Currently, radioactive dates correlate for samples, for example, the K-T boundary has been dated using varying radioactive decay methods with varying exponential radioactive decay rates. Those analytical reports provide correlating results (65 million years in age).

Because the rates of decay are exponential (not linear), when you change the rates of decay, for example if you sped each decay rate by a factor of 10, they would no longer align and you wouldnt have correlating dates (a factor of ten is different for an exponential rate with a short half life, versus an exponential rate with a long half life).

But we do have correlating dates, so mathematically speaking, this idea about varying decay rates, doesnt hold up.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just thinking about your time dilation idea. What evidence is there for such a thing?

 

[Job 33:6]

Just thinking about time dilation. Just because an object undergoes time dilation, it doesn't mean that the age of the object is untrue. An astronaut for example may in space, slow in time. But the astronaut still experiences time as if it were normal. What value is there in telling someone they are young if they had experienced being old?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To clarify, different radioactive dating methods use different elements with different decay rates.

http://www.nuclear-power.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Table_decay_half-live.png

So lets say you have an object, dated independently using 2 or more isotopes, and the dating methods yielded the same result. The K-T boundary has been dated numerous times using different isotopes from samples all over the world that have correlated to 65 million years old, so this isnt hypothetical.

So, already we have a "coincidence" that young earthers could not explain, but lets say hypothetically we sped our decay rates up. So, carbon for example runs at 5000 or so years per half life, while radium is 1600.

So, lets say we have an object that is 2500 years old. You would have carbon that has underwent 0.5 of a half life and radium that has undergone a little under 1.54 half lives.

But, lets say you sped the decay rates up. Lets say 10 times faster for both. Ok, that means the carbon half life would be 500 years and the radium half life would be 160.

At those decay rates, in order for carbon and radium to match up with the 2500 year old age, carbon would have to undergo 5 half lives (instead of 0.5). While radium would undergone 15.62 half lives (instead of 1.54).

So now lets compare the before and after. For carbon, we have a 0.5 half life to 5.0 half lives.
For radium we have 1.54 half lives to 15.62 half lives.

0.5/1.54=0.324
5.0/15.62=0.320

If you kept your parent to daughter ratio the same, then your final ages for each method would come out different.

If decay rates change, it follows suit that the proportions of daughter to parent atoms change as well. So, if you change decay rates, the analytical results would not match up as they do.

But because they do match up, we know that they have not changed.

Therefore, this idea that decay rates were sped up and slowed down doesnt mathematically make any sense.

That is such a straw man and you know it. And a sad attempt at one at that.

If the twin took both a sample of carbon and a sample of radium on board, to him he would notice not a single change in their decay rates in proportion to each other.

But now you and I both know for a fact that even though to the twin everything remains the same, that the twin and everything sharing his frame aged slower by the same proportional amount.

The iron in the twins body did not suddenly decay at a disproportional rate to the lithium in his body. Everything decayed at the same proportional rate as they always have to one another, just the decay rate for all of them changed proportionally to the energy added from his change in velocity.

Unless you are going to make the claim that the accelerating twin no longer measures the same proportional decay rates between elements? I didn't think so, so why the attempt at the straw man?