If Evolution were true...

MarkT said:

From a creationist point of view, there's no rule that says a platypus can't lay eggs, if it was meant to lay eggs.

Click to expand...

From a creationist point of view, there's no rule except "Goddidit."

MarkT said:

However, what I mean by transitional species would be an ancestor of the platypus, not the platypus.

Click to expand...

Now you want a living ancestor of the platypus? Why would you expect to see such a species living?

MarkT said:

By transitional species, I'm refering to all those species that must have come before the species of whatever that we see today - species that exhibit a type of change that we don't see in any other member of the family they belong to. We don't see them.

Click to expand...

Sure we do! Every species has unique features. If they are living, then we Don't know what if anything they will eventually transition to. How could we?

MarkT said:

Mathclub says species split off and formed branches. Would that be a small change or a big change? I'd say branching would be a type of change we should not see in a family.

Click to expand...

Why not? Yes, small changes are normally the rule.

MarkT said:

Certainly we are now going in a different direction. We're going from improving the breed to a transformation inconsistent with the notion of a small change. What would cause this branching? Don't tell me natural selection. There's nothing natural about it. We don't see this branching in nature. There's no accounting for it. No precedent. Birds remain birds. Moths remain moths. Bacteria remain bacteria.

Click to expand...

Yes, natural selection. Sorry if you don't like it. Yes, birds remain birds, just as primates remain primates and apes remain apes. I feel like we've gone over all this before.

MarkT said:

If you could go back in time to any point in time, you will probably find the same thing. At any point in time in the past, you will not find any living transitional species, especially common ancestors. Yet they should exist in abundance. Of course you will say they went extinct. One million years ago? They went extinct. A hundred million years ago? They went extinct. It's easy to say. But what if they never existed?

Click to expand...

The fossil record says otherwise. If you went back to the Devonian and found a nice shallow river or stream, you might find some fishapods, like Tiktaalik. If you went back to the Permian, you would find mammal-like reptiles. You would be hard pressed to decide which were "reptiles" and which were "mammals."

MarkT said:

Also from a creationist point of view, there's nothing that says two entirely different creatures can not have wings.

Click to expand...

Again, from a creationist point of view it doesn't matter what we find. So what?

Originally Posted by MarkT 
However, what I mean by transitional species would be an ancestor of the platypus, not the platypus.

Now you want a living ancestor of the platypus? Why would you expect to see such a species living?

Click to expand...

Why not? It seems to be true of every living creature that we never see a living common ancestor. Also if you draw a line between the common ancestor and the purported descendant, we never see the living species in between.

Originally Posted by MarkT 
By transitional species, I'm referring to all those species that must have come before the species of whatever that we see today - species that exhibit a type of change that we don't see in any other member of the family they belong to. We don't see them.

Sure we do! Every species has unique features. If they are living, then we Don't know what if anything they will eventually transition to. How could we?

Click to expand...

Again, I’m specifically referring to the species between the common ancestor and the descendant.

Originally Posted by MarkT 
Mathclub says species split off and formed branches. Would that be a small change or a big change? I'd say branching would be a type of change we should not see in a family.

Why not? Yes, small changes are normally the rule.

Click to expand...

You call branching a small change? O.K. Have it your own way.

I associate branching with a common ancestor and splitting off. So I would differentiate branching from speciation, speciation being a more or less common occurrence, while branching would occur rarely.

Also as a rule, traits are inherited from parents. So if the parents did not have wings, for instance, then the offspring won’t have wings. So it follows that the ancestor of birds, for instance, had wings. Traits are either preserved or lost. We don't see new traits.

But if the question is, if evolution is true, what would we see that we don’t see in the world around us, then I would have to say, if evolution is true, then we would see branching. However branching is something we don’t see. Speciation, yes. Branching, no.

Originally Posted by MarkT 
If you could go back in time to any point in time, you will probably find the same thing. At any point in time in the past, you will not find any living transitional species, especially common ancestors. Yet they should exist in abundance. Of course you will say they went extinct. One million years ago? They went extinct. A hundred million years ago? They went extinct. It's easy to say. But what if they never existed?

The fossil record says otherwise. If you went back to the Devonian and found a nice shallow river or stream, you might find some fishapods, like Tiktaalik. If you went back to the Permian, you would find mammal-like reptiles. You would be hard pressed to decide which were "reptiles" and which were "mammals."

Click to expand...

That’s not what I said. I said if you went back in time, you won’t find living transitional species at any point in time. To put it another way, if you went back to the Devonian, I'm predicting you won’t find the ancestors of the creatures you mentioned. Those creatures had ancestors too, ancestors that apparently didn’t look like fishapods, and are now, in the Devonian, extinct.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove common descent. Oh no. God has sent this delusion. You can't escape it. I just want to say, if you show kindness and mercy, I will stick up for you. I can. Believe me.

AV1611VET said:

Then you're not going to accept anything I say, are you?

I doubt you would even try.

For example, if I said God cured me of [whatever], how would you respond?

If you're really that interested, get a copy of Guidepost Magazine, then get a team of mythbusters up and head out on the road.

Sorry, Math, I'm taking your curiosity with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to accept anything you say that is from the bible, unless it can be verified from other sources, so if that's all you have to say, then no.

If you said God cured you of whatever, then I would ask if you happened to also be taking medicene when god happened to cure you. I would also ask what the rate is of people getting better from whatever is by themselves and then ask how you can tell the difference between a rare event (like 1 in 1000 people recover from whatever on their own) and a miracle (god cured you). I would also be curious as to why some of those 1 in 1000 who got better by themselves were non-christian and why some of the 999 people who died were christians who had families and congregations praying for them to get better. I would also be curious in the self curing rates of the USA vs much less religious developed 1st world countries, because if god was performing miracles then you'd expect the USA's self cure rates to be much higher given the supposedly larger presence of god in the states.

Are any of these comments illogical or unreasonable?

mathclub said:

If you said God cured you of whatever, then I would ask if you happened to also be taking medicene when god happened to cure you. I would also ask what the rate is of people getting better from whatever is by themselves and then ask how you can tell the difference between a rare event (like 1 in 1000 people recover from whatever on their own) and a miracle (god cured you). I would also be curious as to why some of those 1 in 1000 who got better by themselves were non-christian and why some of the 999 people who died were christians who had families and congregations praying for them to get better. I would also be curious in the self curing rates of the USA vs much less religious developed 1st world countries, because if god was performing miracles then you'd expect the USA's self cure rates to be much higher given the supposedly larger presence of god in the states.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't ask if God is sovereign?

MarkT said:

From a creationist point of view, there's no rule that says a platypus can't lay eggs, if it was meant to lay eggs.

However, what I mean by transitional species would be an ancestor of the platypus, not the platypus.

By transitional species, I'm refering to all those species that must have come before the species of whatever that we see today - species that exhibit a type of change that we don't see in any other member of the family they belong to. We don't see them.

Mathclub says species split off and formed branches. Would that be a small change or a big change? I'd say branching would be a type of change we should not see in a family.

Certainly we are now going in a different direction. We're going from improving the breed to a transformation inconsistent with the notion of a small change. What would cause this branching? Don't tell me natural selection. There's nothing natural about it. We don't see this branching in nature. There's no accounting for it. No precedent. Birds remain birds. Moths remain moths. Bacteria remain bacteria.

If you could go back in time to any point in time, you will probably find the same thing. At any point in time in the past, you will not find any living transitional species, especially common ancestors. Yet they should exist in abundance. Of course you will say they went extinct. One million years ago? They went extinct. A hundred million years ago? They went extinct. It's easy to say. But what if they never existed?

Also from a creationist point of view, there's nothing that says two entirely different creatures can not have wings.

Click to expand...

Your first comment about some species exhibiting a type of change we don't see in other members of their families is just blatantly wrong. We do see that and have seen that. You can see the change step by step from the common ancestor or hippopotamuses and whales along the whale branch as they turn into modern day whales. We happen to have a good whale fossil record, which is why you can see this change step by step.

branching is a big change, but it happens slowly, over generations and generations, not instantly. creationists seem to struggle with this change. better than the tree analogy, imagine what happens with languages as they change over time. imagine what happened as the latin language evolved into modern day spanish, italian, german and whatever else. It is not a quick change, but happens slowly. There is no latin speaking mother giving birth to a spanish speaking baby. And if you got a fossil (a document written as the language has changed) then you will see it exhibits characteristics of both latin and modern spanish.

To be honest the whole term 'transitional' doesn't really make sense, and is something that only creationists say. It's not really a logical way to look at it if you understand evolution. Every animal that ever existed was an indepent animal in it's own right, and part of it's own species in it's own right. The fact some of it's ancestors may have gone on to become other species doesn't change the fact that it was still an independant animal itself. 'Transitional' makes it sound like it is a temporary animal, only on the way to being something else more imporant. In which case every single animal is transitional cause they are all on the way to be something else, either extinct or a different species. There is no 'important' in nature. Evolution selects traits that help a species surive better, but sometimes other traits lessen. For example we are much more intelligent than apes. But they are much, much stronger than we are. As we have evolved and put limited body resources into growing bigger brains, then we have diverted growth away from our bodies, which is why our bodies are so much weaker and more inferior to almost any type of animal. And if you put us in a cage with any animal of even a vaguely similar size in a naked fight to the death we lose almost every time. But we are much more intelligent and better at communicating so in groups or in a different environment we can overcome any type of animal now.

natural selection does account for the split, and we do have examples of it in nature. You keep asserting knowledge that is just plain and provably wrong. There are many things that can account for this change. One is geographical seperation. Some of the modern speciation that has been observed is when you have species of fish that live in different lakes and never mix, and then after time they become different species. This geographical seperation happens with land animals too. It's the reason the galopogas islands, australia, new zealand and other islands all have such unique native wildlife. They get split off from their ancestors and evolved in totally different ways.

you keep saying 'birds remain birds' even tho i explained in some detail why you are wrong. I'll try one more time. Dinosaurs and birds are two different 'families' of animals to creationists, correct? God created them both at the same time? So they are different types of animals?

If this were correct you would see dinosaurs and birds exist in the same levels of the fossil layer. You would have proof they both existed at the same time. If evolution was correct and they are actually the same type of animal, then you would see them exist in different parts of the fossil record, you would see dinosaurs having feathers and other bird-like features, you would see comparing the dna that they are extremely closely related. Do you know that the T-rex and modern birds are more closely related by dna than either is to an alligator?

And yes, like so many other of your statements, if you went back in time you would find living animals that are what you call 'transitional species'. we know they lived because we have fossil records that can show us when they lived.

Almost everything you write on this subject is wrong because you just don't understand evolution, even when it is explained to you over and over.

AV1611VET said:

You wouldn't ask if God is sovereign?

Click to expand...

no, i would ask all of those questions that you just chose to ignore.

AV1611VET said:

You wouldn't ask if God is sovereign?

Click to expand...

That's because I tend not to ask questions when I already know the answers plus I try not to ask silly questions.

Where do you get off saying that your imaginary God is the sovereign God? what about the other billions of imaginary Gods out there? then again I suppose everyone thinks their imaginary God is the one soverign God, please forget I asked.

What happens to your God if you should be unfortunate and develop Alzheimer's? I knew people who didn't know their children so I shouldn't think they would remember that they had been religious.

mathclub said:

no, i would ask all of those questions that you just chose to ignore.

Click to expand...

Ya -- you guys are just one big bag of multiple questions, aren't you?

I normally have the attitude tl;da -- (too long; didn't answer) -- but I'll try answering one and see where it goes.

mathclub said:

If you said God cured you of whatever, then I would ask if you happened to also be taking medicene when god happened to cure you.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would.

God gifts us doctors, and He expects us to go to them.

In fact, He told us we need doctors:

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

And speaking of Luke, wasn't he referred to as the 'beloved physician'?

Thus when we are healed, God gets the primary credit, and the doctor the secondary.

visa said:

What happens to your God if you should be unfortunate and develop Alzheimer's?

Click to expand...

I don't know -- what does happen to Him?

Didn't He say:

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

If I go in my sleep, by Alzheimer's, or by alligators -- what's the problem?

Are we all supposed to die in our sleep; nice and comfy-cozy to the very end? or do you expect us to live forever?

AV1611VET said:

I don't know -- what does happen to Him?

Didn't He say:

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

If I go in my sleep, by Alzheimer's, or by alligators -- what's the problem?

Are we all supposed to die in our sleep; nice and comfy-cozy to the very end? or do you expect us to live forever?

Click to expand...

I just thought in might be unfortunate if your God disappeared before you died.

MarkT said:

Why not? It seems to be true of every living creature that we never see a living common ancestor. Also if you draw a line between the common ancestor and the purported descendant, we never see the living species in between.

Click to expand...

I can't tell if you really don't get it, or you're purposely being dense...
Something having a common ancestor means that the ancestral species branched at some point into two separate species. Thus while one side of the branch might stay very similar to the original ancestral species, the other branch may continue to branch or evolve into a much different species.

Again, I’m specifically referring to the species between the common ancestor and the descendant.

Click to expand...

We don't see most of them because they've evolved into the current species. When a branch happens, it doesn't go one way making a new species and the other way keeping the old species exactly the same...

You call branching a small change? O.K. Have it your own way.

Click to expand...

It's not his way, it's the way the entire definition of the term is used. You're the one 'having it your way'.

I associate branching with a common ancestor and splitting off. So I would differentiate branching from speciation, speciation being a more or less common occurrence, while branching would occur rarely.

Click to expand...

Speciation is branching. You don't just get to make up your own definitions of terms. When two species can no longer interbreed, they are considered 'branched', they are also considered 'speciated'. When we observe a speciation event, it becomes another splitting off on a branch of a cladogram.

Also as a rule, traits are inherited from parents. So if the parents did not have wings, for instance, then the offspring won’t have wings.

Click to expand...

Do you not understand the concept of mutation and selection? Yes, the parents don't have wings, but if the offspring is born with an extra flap of skin behind it's arms that allow it to glide, and that change is beneficial for the creature, it will get passed on. If it is quite beneficial then soon the genes will have propagated to the entirety of the population.

So it follows that the ancestor of birds, for instance, had wings. Traits are either preserved or lost. We don't see new traits.

Click to expand...

Your premise (traits are passed on 100% without change from the parents) is faulty, and thus your conclusion does not logically follow. How exactly are you defining 'new traits'? We have definitely seen new traits emerge in the wild, my favourite example being nylon digesting bacteria.

But if the question is, if evolution is true, what would we see that we don’t see in the world around us, then I would have to say, if evolution is true, then we would see branching. However branching is something we don’t see. Speciation, yes. Branching, no.

Click to expand...

As I said above, you don't just get to redefine the terms. Speciation and branching are the same thing; claiming they are different is completely false.

That’s not what I said. I said if you went back in time, you won’t find living transitional species at any point in time. To put it another way, if you went back to the Devonian, I'm predicting you won’t find the ancestors of the creatures you mentioned. Those creatures had ancestors too, ancestors that apparently didn’t look like fishapods, and are now, in the Devonian, extinct.

Click to expand...

Evolution predicted "fishapods" in the Devonian, and we found them. What is your beef exactly? That we found a 'transitional form' and thus just created two new 'gaps' that you can argue we haven't found species that fit those predicted characteristics yet? How many will be enough? It seems you creationists will never be happy until we have a example of every creature that has ever lived, from the first proto-cell to today. I'm sorry, but even without any fossils at all, modern genetics is more than enough evidence to substantiate and confirm common ancestry.

MarkT said:

Originally Posted by MarkT 
However, what I mean by transitional species would be an ancestor of the platypus, not the platypus.



Why not? It seems to be true of every living creature that we never see a living common ancestor. Also if you draw a line between the common ancestor and the purported descendant, we never see the living species in between.

Originally Posted by MarkT 
By transitional species, I'm referring to all those species that must have come before the species of whatever that we see today - species that exhibit a type of change that we don't see in any other member of the family they belong to. We don't see them.



Again, I’m specifically referring to the species between the common ancestor and the descendant.

Originally Posted by MarkT 
Mathclub says species split off and formed branches. Would that be a small change or a big change? I'd say branching would be a type of change we should not see in a family.



You call branching a small change? O.K. Have it your own way.

I associate branching with a common ancestor and splitting off. So I would differentiate branching from speciation, speciation being a more or less common occurrence, while branching would occur rarely.

Also as a rule, traits are inherited from parents. So if the parents did not have wings, for instance, then the offspring won’t have wings. So it follows that the ancestor of birds, for instance, had wings. Traits are either preserved or lost. We don't see new traits.

But if the question is, if evolution is true, what would we see that we don’t see in the world around us, then I would have to say, if evolution is true, then we would see branching. However branching is something we don’t see. Speciation, yes. Branching, no.

Originally Posted by MarkT 
If you could go back in time to any point in time, you will probably find the same thing. At any point in time in the past, you will not find any living transitional species, especially common ancestors. Yet they should exist in abundance. Of course you will say they went extinct. One million years ago? They went extinct. A hundred million years ago? They went extinct. It's easy to say. But what if they never existed?



That’s not what I said. I said if you went back in time, you won’t find living transitional species at any point in time. To put it another way, if you went back to the Devonian, I'm predicting you won’t find the ancestors of the creatures you mentioned. Those creatures had ancestors too, ancestors that apparently didn’t look like fishapods, and are now, in the Devonian, extinct.

Click to expand...

First of all, you seem confused about this whloe branching thing. It is not separate from speciation. Yes, these changes tend to be small. In order to see a major change (accumulated from many smaller changes) you are going to have to look at long time periods. Therefore, you won't ever see all the intermediate ancestors all living together. You seem to be asking for saltations, and no one really incorporates those into the theory of evolution anymore.

So, let me ask you this: If evolution is correct this is what you expect to find if yoiu could go back in time:

1. Silurian: Fish
2. Devonian: Fish, fishapods.
3. Permian: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammal-like reptiles
4. Jurrasic: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, avian-dinosaurs

This matches what we find in the geological column. We explain it with evolution. How do you explain this?

MarkT said:

Also as a rule, traits are inherited from parents. So if the parents did not have wings, for instance, then the offspring won’t have wings. So it follows that the ancestor of birds, for instance, had wings. Traits are either preserved or lost. We don't see new traits.

Click to expand...

I want to go into more detail with this example. What is the progression here?

1. Dinosaurs either evolve feathers for insulation and display, or inherit them from their ancestors.

2. Some dinosaurs evolve hollow bones to make them lighter and faster.

3. Now all we need is a dinosaur with long arms, and low and behold we have wings and animals light enough to use them to fly!

4. As birds evovle, their tail gets shorter, they loss their teeth and develop beaks. Their breastbone gets larger for more wing muscles.

5. Now we have modern birds. We don't see primitive birds, because they are long extinct.

First of all, you seem confused about this whloe branching thing. It is not separate from speciation. Yes, these changes tend to be small. In order to see a major change (accumulated from many smaller changes) you are going to have to look at long time periods. Therefore, you won't ever see all the intermediate ancestors all living together. You seem to be asking for saltations, and no one really incorporates those into the theory of evolution anymore.

So, let me ask you this: If evolution is correct this is what you expect to find if yoiu could go back in time:

1. Silurian: Fish
2. Devonian: Fish, fishapods.
3. Permian: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammal-like reptiles
4. Jurrasic: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, avian-dinosaurs

This matches what we find in the geological column. We explain it with evolution. How do you explain this?

Click to expand...

I would explain it by creation of course. But if you want to hear my explanation, then I’m going to have to make some observations.

Animals don’t mate indiscriminately. They discriminate. Individuals who don’t look right are kicked out. So when we look at populations, we see homogeneity. One sparrow looks like another sparrow to us. Maybe not to another sparrow - they know who belongs - but that’s not important. They look alike to us. We see homogeneity. We also see it in populations of humans - Japanese, Chinese, etc.

Mutations act on populations. A long neck may be beneficial. If it is, then this trait will work its way through the population until every member of the population has a long neck. Some populations will have short necks. Mutations act on pre existing fully functioning structures. There are structures analogous to birds and man, but you don’t see winged men. Mutations can not account for wings, or for any foreign structures for that matter.

However, mutations occur.

Take Darwin’s finches.

My explanation - Two populations of finches arrive from the mainland in search of food. The members of population A have a large beak. The members of population B have a small beak. Population A finds island 1 has a good supply of food. The nuts are hard to crack, but it has a large beak so it works out well for the members of population A. Population B also finds island 1, but its’ beak isn’t large enough to crack the nuts. So it moves on to island 2. The food there is acceptable. Some members from population A also arrive at island 2, but they are beaten back by the more numerous population B. The members of population B defend their territory. Birds are territorial.

That’s my explanation of what Darwin found. The difference in the size of the beak determined where the birds ended up. But I guess that’s not the way Darwin tells it. According to evolution, the bird’s beak evolved by natural selection while they were on the island. I don’t think that’s true. My explanation is simpler and it doesn’t involve natural selection.

As to your question, from a creationist point of view, there is no problem. The Bible states fish and things that live in water were created first.

But my point is still we don’t find living transitional species. Take the human line, for example. We don’t find living members of Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, etc. The same is true of every creature that is presently living. We don’t find their ancestor species alive and well. I would expect to see the branch - some species that did not go extinct.

So, let me ask you this: If evolution is correct this is what you expect to find if yoiu could go back in time:

1. Silurian: Fish
2. Devonian: Fish, fishapods.
3. Permian: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammal-like reptiles
4. Jurrasic: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, avian-dinosaurs

Click to expand...

Actually you would not expect to find fish first if evolution is correct. The only reason you know fish came first is because you have the fossil record. If you didn't have the fossil record, you could not make that prediction from evolution alone.

MarkT said:

Actually you would not expect to find fish first if evolution is correct. The only reason you know fish came first is because you have the fossil record. If you didn't have the fossil record, you could not make that prediction from evolution alone.

Click to expand...

Modern genetics tells us this. Even without a single fossil at all common descent is still a done deal.

rjc34 said:

Modern genetics tells us this. Even without a single fossil at all common descent is still a done deal.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Ya -- you guys are just one big bag of multiple questions, aren't you?

I normally have the attitude tl;da -- (too long; didn't answer) -- but I'll try answering one and see where it goes.

Yes, I would.

God gifts us doctors, and He expects us to go to them.

In fact, He told us we need doctors:

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

And speaking of Luke, wasn't he referred to as the 'beloved physician'?

Thus when we are healed, God gets the primary credit, and the doctor the secondary.

Click to expand...

so it's not a miracle then? it's just you going to the doctor and getting better, the same as any atheist does? Any evidence that medicene works better on believers than non-believers? I have been sick many times in my life, and been cured by medicene each time despite not believing in any form of god, how does that work? And why does it work on people who believe the polar opposite from you, who believe in a different god and who would in fact destroy your religion if they had the chance because they consider it going against their god?

Remember this whole thing started because you were giving me an example of a modern day miracle. So far your 'evidence' of a modern day miracle is to give me an hypothetical situation about someone going to the doctor and getting better and then claiming god did it.

I know you don't understand what a lot of words mean but do we need to add 'miracle' to the list as well?

AV1611VET said:

Thus when we are healed, God gets the primary credit, and the doctor the secondary.

Click to expand...

That's disgusting.

Doctors deserve the "primary credit", not God.

God didn't give us doctors, God didn't pick people up and zap medical knowledge into their minds. God didn't spend 10+ years of their life learning and studying to become a doctor. God hasn't collectively spent millenia studying and examining the human body, and discovering ways to treat it when it goes wrong.

God didn't give us doctors, we gave ourselves doctors.

You can take that nonsense that it's thanks to God more than medical science and shove it.