Human Evolution

[Sayre]

Half and Half animal. I try to imagine in my head, if it takes millions of years, like 10 million or more for something to evolve, eventually it will get to the half Evolved form. Add up the mutations and changes in the body, and you WILL get a half and half animal.

(I wanted to answer your question, but yet again got side tracked with people analyzing me again, so I forgot)

My quotes I posted, says that we have millions of fossils preserved in muséums. It should be more than enough evidence to find half and half animals, but we dont.

Do you know what saltationism is?

 

[lasthero]

Half and Half animal. I try to imagine in my head, if it takes millions of years, like 10 million or more for something to evolve, eventually it will get to the half Evolved form. Add up the mutations and changes in the body, and you WILL get a half and half animal.

That's not the definition of what a transitional fossil is, but let's humor that.

This is Gerobatrachus.

It's a transitional form between salamanders and frogs. You can - but probably won't - read about him, here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/nature06865.html

Can you please explain why this creature, with a mixture of salamander and frog features, doesn't count as transitional? If it's not transitional, what should a transitional species between salamanders and frogs look like?

 

[anyathesword]

That's not the definition of what a transitional fossil is, but let's humor that.

This is Gerobatrachus.

It's a transitional form between salamanders and frogs. You can - but probably won't - read about him, here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/nature06865.html

Can you please explain why this creature, with a mixture of salamander and frog features, doesn't count as transitional? If it's not transitional, what should a transitional species between salamanders and frogs look like?

(I can't read unless I'm registered or if I pay for the article)...

 

[Nithavela]

When in doubt, Wikipedia comes to the rescue!

Gerobatrachus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and...

https://www.ucalgary.ca/news/may2008/Gerobatrachus

 

[lasthero]

My bad, could have sworn it was free. I remember linking this before. Odd.

Anyway, those links should do.

 

[anyathesword]

How do you post pictures? When I click on the little icon it says I'm forbidden to use it.

 

[anyathesword]

My bad, could have sworn it was free. I remember linking this before. Odd.

Anyway, those links should do.

Great, thanks, I will come up with my research in a few moments..

(Always remember that posting the original bones of the fossil find is very important because many times the artists overexaggerate the image in their minds)

At this point, Creationists are not sure if frogs and salamanders are the same kind (amphibians)..Now I continue to search..

 

[Nithavela]

Never had that error before. You mean the small "insert image" button with the mountains and the sun and yellow sky?

You might want to ask a moderator or look for a bord pertaining technical issues.

 

[46AND2]

How do you post pictures? When I click on the little icon it says I'm forbidden to use it.

Did you have a chance to look through my post about Hovind and Wells, yet? Realize you are speaking to several people at once, so I'm not trying to push you. Just don't want it getting lost in the shuffle.

 

[anyathesword]

That's not the definition of what a transitional fossil is, but let's humor that.

This is Gerobatrachus.

It's a transitional form between salamanders and frogs. You can - but probably won't - read about him, here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/nature06865.html

Can you please explain why this creature, with a mixture of salamander and frog features, doesn't count as transitional? If it's not transitional, what should a transitional species between salamanders and frogs look like?

Can you show me the original fossil find of Gerobatrachus and tell me if something is missing?

 

[Nithavela]

Here's a picture of the fossil, as well as a transcription of the found bones. It's not complete, but not much is lacking. Also remember that trained biologists can deduct a lot even from a few bones.

Note the big head and the tail (frogs have rather huge head bones, but lack a tail) for example.

 

[anyathesword]

Did you have a chance to look through my post about Hovind and Wells, yet? Realize you are speaking to several people at once, so I'm not trying to push you. Just don't want it getting lost in the shuffle.

Did you post it last night? (I have not read the posts from last night (I'm in France). I still have that to do...

 

[anyathesword]

Here's a picture of the fossil, as well as a transcription of the found bones. It's not complete, but not much is lacking. Also remember that trained biologists can deduct a lot even from a few bones.

Note the big head and the tail (frogs have rather huge head bones, but lack a tail) for example.

Perfect! Yes, the little icon, I don't know what's wrong with it.

Anyway, what is missing?

 

[46AND2]

Did you post it last night? (I have not read the posts from last night (I'm in France). I still have that to do...

It's post 731 of this thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7803952-19/#post65049217

 

[lasthero]

At this point, Creationists are not sure if frogs and salamanders are the same kind (amphibians).

Wait. Stop.

Are you seriously telling me that 'amphibians' is a kind?

 

[Nithavela]

Perfect! Yes, the little icon, I don't know what's wrong with it.

Anyway, what is missing?

The forelegs are missing, for example. And the hind legs, minus the feet. But the spine is still there, as well as the head and tail and feet. That's quite a lot to work with.

 

[anyathesword]

Here's a picture of the fossil, as well as a transcription of the found bones. It's not complete, but not much is lacking. Also remember that trained biologists can deduct a lot even from a few bones.

Note the big head and the tail (frogs have rather huge head bones, but lack a tail) for example.

"research team’s original wording was:

‘The 110-mm-long specimen (Fig. 1) is preserved fully articulated in ventral [bottom] view, and is missing only the stylopods, zeugopods, and ventral portions of the skull and pectoral girdle.’"Creative frogamandering - creation.com

What is all that stuff mentioned above?

"Prominent evolutionists Neil Shubin, Clif Tabin and Sean Carroll define them thus:

The tetrapod limb consists of three distinct compartments: a, the stylopod (upper arm and thigh); b, zeugopod (lower arm and calf); and c, autopod (hand and foot). "

So, if 'the legs—not to mention the pectoral girdle—were missing. Hence no-one can tell from the fossil remains of Gerobatrachus hottoni how, or even if, it might have walked (hopped?). So no-one can say for sure what sort of amphibian it might be."

John Bolt also said that '‘The most astonishing thing to me about this study is that this animal is far more froglike than I would ever have expected from its age.

‘Nothing this nonprimitive has ever been described from this age. It’s just amazing.’
Creative frogamandering - creation.com

And he also observed that it is very similar to modern amphibians.

 

[anyathesword]

The forelegs are missing, for example. And the hind legs, minus the feet. But the spine is still there, as well as the head and tail and feet. That's quite a lot to work with.

And what about the pectoral girdle? That's very important to know if the amphibian walked or hopped...something to consider...

 

[anyathesword]

Wait. Stop.

Are you seriously telling me that 'amphibians' is a kind?

It's a possibility, but I do not know and the creationist don't know for the moment. It is difficult, you know, just like to classify animals into their taxonomy group...

But that's not the most important thing..it's the fossil bones of this amphibian.

 

[lasthero]

"research team’s original wording was:

‘The 110-mm-long specimen (Fig. 1) is preserved fully articulated in ventral [bottom] view, and is missing only the stylopods, zeugopods, and ventral portions of the skull and pectoral girdle.’"Creative frogamandering - creation.com

What is all that stuff mentioned above?

"Prominent evolutionists Neil Shubin, Clif Tabin and Sean Carroll define them thus:

The tetrapod limb consists of three distinct compartments: a, the stylopod (upper arm and thigh); b, zeugopod (lower arm and calf); and c, autopod (hand and foot). "

So, if 'the legs—not to mention the pectoral girdle—were missing. Hence no-one can tell from the fossil remains of Gerobatrachus hottoni how, or even if, it might have walked (hopped?). So no-one can say for sure what sort of amphibian it might be."

John Bolt also said that '‘The most astonishing thing to me about this study is that this animal is far more froglike than I would ever have expected from its age.

‘Nothing this nonprimitive has ever been described from this age. It’s just amazing.’
Creative frogamandering - creation.com

And he also observed that it is very similar to modern amphibians.

I'm not expert, but what I find much more interesting that the question of whether it walked or hopped is the fact that it's a FROG WITH A TAIL.

Frogs don't have tails. Salamanders have tails. If frogs and salamanders shared a common ancestor, we would expect to see something like a frog with a tail at some point...and we do see that. If a frog with a tail isn't evidence of frogs sharing ancestry with salamanders, what would be?