How do creationist deal with transitional fossils?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hmm... about 5 million years of growth, though various species of Homo. There's a very simple and testable mechanism. It's called "allometry." The growth of the human brain is directly attributable to the retardation of maturation in humans. We take a lot longer to mature, and we never fully assume an adult form as other apes do. This is why young chimps look so human; they are immature, and more closely resemble us in facial features, skull-to-face ratio, length of limbs, size of jaws, and so on.

Barbarian is prone to generalities.

​

Allometry is the observed fact. Why it happens is the question.

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change , with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes . Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400 Myr ago . (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans)​

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that. We can see a growth in the brain as far back as the early Australopithecines. And likewise, in the gracile Australopithicines and their relatives, a reduction in tooth and jaw size, and a flattening of the face, indicating that feotalization was even then progressing.
​

That looks like a cut and paste....something....

Here's a hint:
It's not genes. But as far as the question at hand, about

(Nature 437, 69-87 ) What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070) What is the genetic and evolutionary background of phenotypic traits that set humans apart from our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees?(Genome Research 14:1462-1473)
​

Ok, I know what it says already but...

Surprise. The process precedes the genus Homo.

Barbarian on the possibility of bipedal protochimps:
Very unlikely. They have the primitive form of the gluteal muscles, which would strongly indicate that they were never re-arranged to form buttocks as in humans. And that's critical to walking upright.
​

Unless the butt is a precursor to the brain you are grasping at straws.

Not for bipedalism, it isn't. Buttocks are more than cushioning.

Barbarian suggests:
But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?
​

This just drips with absurdity

Great. Then maybe you'd like the more advanced quiz.

Which of these are apes, and which of these are humans? Since you're certain that there are no transitionals, it should be a snap. And tell us by what criteria you made your decision for each.

Good luck.
​

I have been through the Talk Origins case of skulls a dozen times and the other bogus, so called, evidence of transnationals from ape to man. I offer you detailed specifics and you spam these bizarre images. Start with the Human Family Tree at the Smithsonian site and then pick a specific fossil. Otherwise you are just another spammer wasting everyone else's time. __

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hmm... about 5 million years of growth, though various species of Homo. There's a very simple and testable mechanism. It's called "allometry." The growth of the human brain is directly attributable to the retardation of maturation in humans. We take a lot longer to mature, and we never fully assume an adult form as other apes do. This is why young chimps look so human; they are immature, and more closely resemble us in facial features, skull-to-face ratio, length of limbs, size of jaws, and so on.

Barbarian is prone to generalities.

Barbarian chuckles:
Allometry is the observed fact. Why it happens is the question.​

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that. We can see a growth in the brain as far back as the early Australopithecines. And likewise, in the gracile Australopithicines and their relatives, a reduction in tooth and jaw size, and a flattening of the face, indicating that feotalization was even then progressing.
​

That looks like a cut and paste....something....

But it's not. In fact, because I'm a bit dyslexic, I misspelled "foetalization." It's just the best way I can put those ideas out in words.

Surprise. The process precedes the genus Homo.

Barbarian on the possibility of bipedal protochimps:
Very unlikely. They have the primitive form of the gluteal muscles, which would strongly indicate that they were never re-arranged to form buttocks as in humans. And that's critical to walking upright.
​

Unless the butt is a precursor to the brain you are grasping at straws.

Wrong. There have been bipedal apes before us. Not just those close to the line that led to us, either. Oreopithecus was bipedal, but in quite a different way. Bipedalism is not necessarily the way to a bigger brain, but the anatomy of chimps and humans is quite different. It has to do with the fact that the chimp ilium is straight and the human illum curves around the side of the body. In this position, the gluteus medius pulls the body away from the side with an upraised foot. The prevents the rocking motion you see in apes when they walk bipedally, and it greatly increases efficiency and agility in walking. But it has little to do with the brain, except of course, it frees the hands and thereby engages the brain more.

Barbarian suggests:
But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?
​

This just drips with absurdity

I'm guessing that means you can't do it.

Barbarian asks:
Which of these are apes, and which of these are humans? Since you're certain that there are no transitionals, it should be a snap. And tell us by what criteria you made your decision for each.

Good luck.
​

I have been through the Talk Origins case of skulls a dozen times and the other bogus, so called, evidence of transnationals from ape to man.

I'm not asking you to identify transitionals. I'm asking you to separate the apes from the humans. You see, if you can do that, we must at least admit none of these significant finds is transitional between humans and other primates. But it seems you can't do it.

And that is a significant admission.

 

[mark kennedy]

[/INDENT] Wrong. There have been bipedal apes before us. Not just those close to the line that led to us, either. Oreopithecus was bipedal, but in quite a different way. Bipedalism is not necessarily the way to a bigger brain, but the anatomy of chimps and humans is quite different. It has to do with the fact that the chimp ilium is straight and the human illum curves around the side of the body. In this position, the gluteus medius pulls the body away from the side with an upraised foot. The prevents the rocking motion you see in apes when they walk bipedally, and it greatly increases efficiency and agility in walking. But it has little to do with the brain, except of course, it frees the hands and thereby engages the brain more.

Of course the molecular mechanism for facilitating this adaptation remains a mystery.

But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?
​

I'm guessing that means you can't do it.

Barbarian asks:
Which of these are apes, and which of these are humans? Since you're certain that there are no transitionals, it should be a snap. And tell us by what criteria you made your decision for each.​

Simple rhetoric, you will just keep asking the question and never admit there was an answer.

Good luck.

Yea I would collapse from dizziness before you stopped running me in circles with that.

​

I'm not asking you to identify transitionals. I'm asking you to separate the apes from the humans. You see, if you can do that, we must at least admit none of these significant finds is transitional between humans and other primates. But it seems you can't do it.

Homo habilis is ape, Homo erectus is human.

And that is a significant admission.

Nonsense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Wrong. There have been bipedal apes before us. Not just those close to the line that led to us, either. Oreopithecus was bipedal, but in quite a different way. Bipedalism is not necessarily the way to a bigger brain, but the anatomy of chimps and humans is quite different. It has to do with the fact that the chimp ilium is straight and the human illum curves around the side of the body. In this position, the gluteus medius pulls the body away from the side with an upraised foot. The prevents the rocking motion you see in apes when they walk bipedally, and it greatly increases efficiency and agility in walking. But it has little to do with the brain, except of course, it frees the hands and thereby engages the brain more.
​

Of course the molecular mechanism for facilitating this adaptation remains a mystery.

Not since Watson and Crick.

Barbarian asks:
But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?

(challenge declined)
​

Barbarian observes:
I'm guessing that means you can't do it.

Barbarian asks:
Which of these are apes, and which of these are humans? Since you're certain that there are no transitionals, it should be a snap. And tell us by what criteria you made your decision for each.​

Simple rhetoric, you will just keep asking the question and never admit there was an answer.

So far, you've declined to say. Since you can't seem to make the decision where to draw the line, we can only conclude that the transitionals do exist.

Yea I would collapse from dizziness before you stopped running me in circles with that.

It's easy. Tell me which are apes and which are humans, and how you decided. No circles.

You see, if you can do that, we must at least admit none of these significant finds is transitional between humans and other primates. But it seems you can't do it.​

Homo habilis is ape, Homo erectus is human.

OK, let's take a look. How do you decide that H. erectus is human, and H. habilis is an ape? And what about H. ergaster, which is intermediate in many features between these two? Is H. ergaster a man or an ape?

Here's something that might help:

Note that H. ergaster has a foramen magnum almost as forward as it is in anatomically modern humans.
That means that they were accustomed to walking upright, and that neotony was well advanced in these organisms. (as apes mature, the foramen magnum moves back, as you see in the gorilla skull)

So which skull do you think H. ergaster most resembles here?

 

[shernren]

So which skull do you think H. ergaster most resembles here?

This one!

Egads, the evolutionists even control Hollywood now.

 

[Biblewriter]

In response to "Now mutations take place only at the genetic level. (If they are not there, they are not mutations.) And these mutations must of necessity take place one at a time."
The Barbarian answers,

In any given individual. But even rather restricted species number in the millions, so many different mutations are being tried out every generation.

You have missed the entire point of my post. For "natural selection" to work, there must first be a mutation that confers a selective advantage. This mutation must of necessity occur at a specific time and place. Then, since it confers a selective advantage, it must have time to establish its predominance throughout the species in question. There is no other way that "natural selection of chanch variations could work.

Thus, the transitional form that has this specific gene must exist for a long period of time, long enough to replace the form that existed previously.

Thus, in order for "natural selection of chance variations" to work, there must of necessity have been a transitional
form for each and every specific genetic change, and this transitional form must of necessity have been the predominant form of the species for a significant period of time.

To "Thus, even a transition from one species to the closest similar species will of necessity require the existance of thousands of transitional forms. Each of these mini-transitions must of necessity have a selective advantage over its peers."

The Barbarian answers

So far, we can show a marked and gradual change in brain sizes among the various species of Homo. Would you like to learn about that?

To "So the demonstration of a dozen or so transitional forms is by no means a demonstration of evolutionary progress."

The Barbarian answers

I'm surprised anyone would even attempt that kind of argument. It's a rather open admission that one won't accept evidence.

Both of these answere are simply avoiding the point I have stressed. There must OF NECESSITY have been literally thousands of transitional forms between each and every one of the transitional forms that evolutionists can point to. And EVERY ONE of these transitional forms must of necessity have existed for a significant period of time.

When hundreds of thousands of transitional forms would of necessity have to have existed for the theory to have been correct, the demonstration of a dozen or so transitional forms does not even scratch the surface of proof.

To "If man eveoved from an ape-like creature, there must of absolute necessity have been literally hundreds of thousands of transitional forms. Nothing even remotely resembling a demonstration of such development has ever been shown."

The barbarian answers,

You've been misled on that. We surely have hundreds of hominins now, and even among the different speces, we can see transitional forms. In H. erectus, for example, the ancient ones had much smaller brains than more recent ones. Indeed, at one point, it becomes impossible to say with certainty where H. erectus ends and archaic H. sapiens begins.

Are you actually prepared to argue that even "hundreds" can demonstrate the existence of "hundreds of thousands"?

To"Instead of discussion what percentage of genetic material is identical in a species supposedly descended from another, we should instead concentrate on the number of genes that differ. (say, perhaps, 100,000? that's just a guess)"

The Barbarian answers

Probably not a useful approach. For example, the foetalization of hominids, with retention of juvenile form becoming more and more pronounced over time, was probably the result of changes in genes that controlled timing of development, and a few changes would then have profound effects.

Are you actually attempting to be absurd? Again, you wholly miss the point. If we have the genome for each of two supposedly related soecies, then we can count the number of genes that differ in these two species.

it is absolutely impossible to escape the fact that there must of necessith have existed at least one transitional form foe every one of the different genes. Fot if the transitional form never existed, it could never have replaced the previous form.

Now I was trying to be exceedingly modest in my estimate of the number of specific genetic differences between two closely related species. I guessed 100,000, but it truth I think it would be closer to 100,000,000.

To "Each one of these genetic differences would of necessity have to developed independently of all the others, and thus there would have to have been a transitional form for every one of the specific genetic differences."

The Barbarian answers

So far, that's what we see. Where species are documented in sufficient numbers, we see gradual change.

In what species have you documented even a thousand transitional forms? Absolutely zero. This has never been done. Now you deny the necessity of demonstrating this, but in denying it you are failing to consider the physical mechanisms by which your theory would have to work. If it did not work in this fashion, it could not work at all. Yet you cannot demonstrate even one time when it has happened in this way.

The reason these few transitional forms are assumed to be proof is because you start with the assumption that your theory is correct. If evolution unquestionably occurred, then your few transitional forms would indeed indicate the direction in which it progressed.

But when the theory itself ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES the existance of literally hundreds of thousands of transitional forms, then the demonstration of a few transitional forms does not IN ANY WAY prove that the theory is correct.

A mind is a terrible thing to imprison. If you have to go through this kind of gymnastics to avoid the evidence, wouldn't it just be easier to let God do it the way He did?

Worked for me.

I agree that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. But it is even more terrible to waste the minds of an entire generation. I have presented clear logic, and you have responded with avoidance of the logic.

Now the standard excuse for the absence of these hundreds of thousands of transitional forms is that very few forms have been fossilized. But if that is true, then why have most of the genera alive today been found fossilized? This, in and by itself, demonstrates in a very loud voice that most of the life forms that have existed have indeed been fossilized, and there fore casts a very great shadow on the possibility that these hundreds of thousands of transitional forms ever existed.

But if these hundreds of thousands of transitional forms never existed, then the changes had to have taken place suddenly. And what is sudden change? It is, by definition, that terrible c-word, creation.

Now you condemn my logic as the workings of a closed mind. But the truth is, that it is the work of an open mind, pointing out a fatal flaw in one of your favorite proofs of your favorite theory. Instead of following, sheep-like, the oversimplified presentations of my professors, I asked questions they could not answer, and like you, they tried to simply avoid them. But these hard facts simply will not go away.

Now that we can actually examine the various genetic structures, it has become possible to actually count the number of transitional forms that would have to have existed in one of these theoretical changes. But no one wants to do that, because it would clearly demonstrate the paucity of the evidence offered.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

In any given individual. But even rather restricted species number in the millions, so many different mutations are being tried out every generation.
​

You have missed the entire point of my post. For "natural selection" to work, there must first be a mutation that confers a selective advantage.

No one who knows of anything in genetics doubts that.

This mutation must of necessity occur at a specific time and place. Then, since it confers a selective advantage, it must have time to establish its predominance throughout the species in question.

So, let's say that a favorable mutation is a one-in-a-million thing. In a population of two million organisms, there are two favorable mutations coming into the population each generation, which will then be favored by natural selection.

Thus, the transitional form that has this specific gene must exist for a long period of time, long enough to replace the form that existed previously.

Yep. This is why the YE creationist notion of hyperevolution after the flood is a crock. (this is necessary, since there wasn't room for all animals on the Ark, and so the rest are supposed to have speciated from various "kinds.") If it didn't take a long time, new species of mammal would be popping into existence monthly. And of course, that doesn't happen.

Thus, in order for "natural selection of chance variations" to work, there must of necessity have been a transitional form for each and every specific genetic change, and this transitional form must of necessity have been the predominant form of the species for a significant period of time.

No. In fact, most speciation arises from small, geographically isolated populations, which change rapidly. This allopatric form of speciation is faster, for the reasons you allude to. Would you like to see the evidence for this?

To "Thus, even a transition from one species to the closest similar species will of necessity require the existance of thousands of transitional forms.

No. The first directly observed speciation occured in one generation, by polyploidy. So it can go pretty fast. One mutation could be enough to produce speciation.

Barbarian observes:

So far, we can show a marked and gradual change in brain sizes among the various species of Homo. Would you like to learn about that?
​

Barbarian observes:

I'm surprised anyone would even attempt that kind of argument. It's a rather open admission that one won't accept evidence.
​

Both of these answere are simply avoiding the point I have stressed. There must OF NECESSITY have been literally thousands of transitional forms between each and every one of the transitional forms that evolutionists can point to.

Ah, the infamous "Gish Gallop." "Every new transitional found, produced two new gaps, so evolution is false." In other words, I should abandon my Christian faith, because no on can tell me what Jesus had for breakfast two days before the Crucifixion. The fact that evolutionary theory has repeatedly predicted the existence of transitional organisms which were later confirmed to exist, is power and compelling evidence. The argument that we don't know everything, so we can't know anything, is too weak to bother with.

Barbarian observese:
You've been misled on that. We surely have hundreds of hominins now, and even among the different speces, we can see transitional forms. In H. erectus, for example, the ancient ones had much smaller brains than more recent ones. Indeed, at one point, it becomes impossible to say with certainty where H. erectus ends and archaic H. sapiens begins.
​

Are you actually prepared to argue that even "hundreds" can demonstrate the existence of "hundreds of thousands"?

Suppose I challenged you to find a body from every generation since Adam. Could you do it? By your reasoning, we must now conclude that we are not descended from Adam.

To"Instead of discussion what percentage of genetic material is identical in a species supposedly descended from another, we should instead concentrate on the number of genes that differ. (say, perhaps, 100,000? that's just a guess)"

Barbarian observes:

Probably not a useful approach. For example, the foetalization of hominids, with retention of juvenile form becoming more and more pronounced over time, was probably the result of changes in genes that controlled timing of development, and a few changes would then have profound effects.
​

Are you actually attempting to be absurd?

No, I'm being very patient with you. You seem completely unaware that there are regulatory genes that make profound changes, and other genes that do very little.

Again, you wholly miss the point. If we have the genome for each of two supposedly related soecies, then we can count the number of genes that differ in these two species.

it is absolutely impossible to escape the fact that there must of necessith have existed at least one transitional form foe every one of the different genes.

You're still stuck on the idea that there can only be one new gene in the population at a time. In fact, there are many, many alleles at any given time, and new ones mutating constantly. So recombination, with those receiving the most useful combinations becoming more numerous, is a powerful mechanism for evolution.

In what species have you documented even a thousand transitional forms? Absolutely zero.

Let's put that to the test. I'll show you a complete fossil skeleton of an animal. Then I'll show you another. If you can't find any changes more drastic than exist in some living species today, it would be sufficient to show that one could have evolved from the other. Then I'll show you some more. When we are done, you will know if you are right or not. Are you willing to put your faith in creationism to the test?

This has never been done. Now you deny the necessity of demonstrating this, but in denying it you are failing to consider the physical mechanisms by which your theory would have to work. If it did not work in this fashion, it could not work at all.

You've been misled on that. It's one one mutation per generation, and more than one change works at a time. And it's not one individual, but millions, each changing, and each contributing to the next generation.

Yet you cannot demonstrate even one time when it has happened in this way.

Let's take a look. Are you willing to accept what the evidence shows?

But when the theory itself ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES the existance of literally hundreds of thousands of transitional forms,

But, of course, it doesn't, any more than we have to know what Jesus ate for breakfast. We merely need sufficient evidence that He was and what He did.

Barbarian observes:
A mind is a terrible thing to imprison. If you have to go through this kind of gymnastics to avoid the evidence, wouldn't it just be easier to let God do it the way He did?

Worked for me.

You seem rather outraged about the way he did it.

I agree that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. But it is even more terrible to waste the minds of an entire generation. I have presented clear logic, and you have responded with avoidance of the logic.

You simply have some rather odd misconceptions about the way biology works. And you have borrowed the same arguments atheists use to deny Jesus.

Now the standard excuse for the absence of these hundreds of thousands of transitional forms is that very few forms have been fossilized. But if that is true, then why have most of the genera alive today been found fossilized?

Actually, very few modern species exist as fossils. You've been misled about that. Moreover, the farther back one goes, the fewer fossils still exist. Even more damning to that assertion is that we gather in new species in the fossil record constantly.

This, in and by itself, demonstrates in a very loud voice that most of the life forms that have existed have indeed been fossilized, and there fore casts a very great shadow on the possibility that these hundreds of thousands of transitional forms ever existed.

See above. Just a few years ago, there were no fossils of transitional whales. Now there are dozens of different species in collections. What we don't know, is a very insecure place to hide God.

But if these hundreds of thousands of transitional forms never existed, then the changes had to have taken place suddenly. And what is sudden change? It is, by definition, that terrible c-word, creation.

We both accept creation. The only difference between us, is that I also accept the way He did it.

Now you condemn my logic as the workings of a closed mind.

No, I didn't. I think you cling to the Adventist doctrine of YE, because you were taught that was the Christian belief. But it's not. Most of us don't believe it. If you learned a little more about biology, it might be easier for you to support your faith in God.

But the truth is, that it is the work of an open mind, pointing out a fatal flaw in one of your favorite proofs of your favorite theory. Instead of following, sheep-like, the oversimplified presentations of my professors, I asked questions they could not answer, and like you, they tried to simply avoid them. But these hard facts simply will not go away.

And now, hopefully, you understand a little better, why your argument isn't the magic bullet you hoped it would be.

 

[Biblewriter]

The first directly observed speciation occured in one generation, by polyploidy. So it can go pretty fast. One mutation could be enough to produce speciation.

I don't deny that (although I would not be certain of it either) bt you still seem to be missing the cenmtral point of my argument, as demonstrated by...

Ah, the infamous "Gish Gallop." "Every new transitional found, produced two new gaps, so evolution is false." In other words, I should abandon my Christian faith, because no on can tell me what Jesus had for breakfast two days before the Crucifixion. The fact that evolutionary theory has repeatedly predicted the existence of transitional organisms which were later confirmed to exist, is power and compelling evidence. The argument that we don't know everything, so we can't know anything, is too weak to bother with.

What we do know is that for evolution to work, a very great number of transitional forms must of necessity have existred. I am not arguing from alleged ignorance. I am arguing from knowledge that there had to have been a very great number of transitional forms. The fact that you have found a few such forms in no way changes the fact that you would need to demonstrate a very large number of such transitional forms in order to demonstrate your hypothesis.

Suppose I challenged you to find a body from every generation since Adam. Could you do it? By your reasoning, we must now conclude that we are not descended from Adam.

You are not equating apples and oranges. You are equating apples and motorcycles. I am arguing that each transitional form must of necessity have existed in numbers similar to the total population of mankind from Adam to the present day, and that there must of necessity have been hundreds of thousands of these transitional forms.

Let's take a look. Are you willing to accept what the evidence shows?

I have looked, and seen nothing of the kind you are alleging.
You simply have some rather odd misconceptions about the way biology works. And you have borrowed the same arguments atheists use to deny Jesus.[/quote]

You consistently cite evolutionary theory as if it is proven fact. I agree that your theories are the way evolution is thought to have occurred, but these are theories, not demonstrated facts.

Actually, very few modern species exist as fossils. You've been misled about that.

You are quite correct, providing 60% to 90% qualifies as "very few of."

What we don't know, is a very insecure place to hide God.

I am not arguing on what we do not know, but on what we do know.

No, I didn't. I think you cling to the Adventist doctrine of YE, because you were taught that was the Christian belief. But it's not. Most of us don't believe it. If you learned a little more about biology, it might be easier for you to support your faith in God.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am YE. I am not. And I am not as ignorant of Biology as you imagine. My Science Area degree included just one course less than required for a degree in biology, two courses short of the requirements for degrees in chemistry and physics, and all the requirements for a degree in mathematics.

And now, hopefully, you understand a little better, why your argument isn't the magic bullet you hoped it would be.

Sorry, I am unconvinced.

 

[shernren]

Ah, the infamous "Gish Gallop." "Every new transitional found, produced two new gaps, so evolution is false."

That's not actually the Gish Gallop. The Gish Gallop is simply the tactic used by certain unsavory creationists* in public discussions or debates with evolutionists where the creationist mentions many points quickly in such a way that the evolutionist does not have the time to tackle them all in-depth. Typically, each point superficially poses a serious challenge to evolution; and even if the evolutionist can give an in-depth answer to a few of them, the remaining points are convincing enough as rhetoric so that the audience still comes away convinced that evolution is wrong.

But does anybody really care? ;D

*as opposed to savory creationists, and I suppose the great majority are. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a leg boiling in the big pot ...

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"Every new transitional found, produced two new gaps, so evolution is false." In other words, I should abandon my Christian faith, because no on can tell me what Jesus had for breakfast two days before the Crucifixion. The fact that evolutionary theory has repeatedly predicted the existence of transitional organisms which were later confirmed to exist, is power and compelling evidence. The argument that we don't know everything, so we can't know anything, is too weak to bother with.
​

What we do know is that for evolution to work, a very great number of transitional forms must of necessity have existred.

For Jesus to have lived, truly man, then He must have, of necessity, eaten periodically. So, your logic "proves" Jesus was not truly man.

I am not arguing from alleged ignorance. I am arguing from knowledge that there had to have been a very great number of transitional forms. The fact that you have found a few such forms

A huge number of them, actually. But a small minority of those that actually existed. Here, your logic says that if we don't have a body from every generation between Adam and us, we can't conclude that we are descended from Adam. Sounds pretty shaky to me.

Suppose I challenged you to find a body from every generation since Adam. Could you do it? By your reasoning, we must now conclude that we are not descended from Adam.
​

You are not equating apples and oranges. You are equating apples and motorcycles.

I'm simply pointing out that your logic, applied to human descent, rules out our descent from Adam.

Barbarian offers:
Let's take a look. I'll show you a complete fossil skeleton of an animal. Then I'll show you another. If you can't find any changes more drastic than exist in some living species today, it would be sufficient to show that one could have evolved from the other. Then I'll show you some more. When we are done, you will know if you are right or not. Are you willing to put your faith in creationism to the test?
​

I have looked, and seen nothing of the kind you are alleging.

Good for you. Then you will easily refute my evidence when we get to it. Are you willing to test your beliefs, then?

Barbarian observes:
You simply have some rather odd misconceptions about the way biology works. And you have borrowed the same arguments atheists use to deny Jesus.

You consistently cite evolutionary theory as if it is proven fact.

It's directly observed. But nothing in science is "proven." We just add more and more evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, very few modern species exist as fossils. You've been misled about that.

You are quite correct, providing 60% to 90% qualifies as "very few of."

Conservatively, there are about 2 million species alive today. Let's see your evidence. Citing someone else saying so, isn't evidence.

Barbarian cautions:
What we don't know, is a very insecure place to hide God.

I am not arguing on what we do not know

Yes, that's precisely what you are doing. We have hundreds of transitionals, many of them predicted to exist before being found, and none of them of the sort that shouldn't exist if evolution was a fact. But because we don't have all of them, you're like the atheist who won't accept Jesus because you can't tell him what He had for breakfast two days before He died.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am YE.

You're recycling most of their old arguments.

I am not. And I am not as ignorant of Biology as you imagine. My Science Area degree included just one course less than required for a degree in biology, two courses short of the requirements for degrees in chemistry and physics, and all the requirements for a degree in mathematics.

And yet, you have huge misconceptions about the nature of evolution, of population genetics, and the fossil record.

Barbarian observes:
And now, hopefully, you understand a little better, why your argument isn't the magic bullet you hoped it would be.

Sorry, I am unconvinced.

Maybe so. But facts have a corrosive effect on hardened dogma, even if it takes some time. And I'm a very patient guy.

Meantime, the offer stands. Do you have enough confidence in your beliefs to test them?

 

[BobRyan]

For the longest time the "party line" was that transitional fossils simply don't exist. In Darwin's time that argument held a bit of water since we had simply not discovered a whole heck of a lot to back up his claims. However now we have tons of what are known in the scientific community as transitional fossils that meet the creationist definition of "part of this "kind" and part of this "kind" of animal".

Is that really "true" or is that simply a "story easy enough to make up -- but NOT science because there is no way to TEST it"??

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

Now if this is the conclusion of a well known atheist darwinist paleontologist -- why should Christians imagine a more favorable outcome than even Atheist Darwinists themselves can imagine for Darwinism?



in Christ,



Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I mean it is pretty hard to say that species like neanderthals were simply apes and we know that they are not human (at least, not on the same evolutionary tree). So how do you guys explain them? This is not a debate and unless I see factual errors I am going to butt out and see what you guys have to say.

Turns out - humans and Neanderthals are contemporary to each other.

Neighbors.

At least that is what atheist darwinists are now telling us after debunking one of their own junk-science fraud claims about Neanderthal claims for 20,000 year old finds -- really being less than 7000 years old.

in Christ,

Bob