Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[OllieFranz]

The same as anyone else, so as I said before, no need to go there and waste time.

Considering that some people say that every organism, not just every fossil, is transitional, whereas you deny that there actually are transitionals in the fossil record, the evidence suggests that "everyone else" does not necessarily have the same definition.

But I'll make it easier on you. Instead of asking for a formal definition, I'll just ask for an example of the kind of thing you would call a transitional. What kind of features mark something as transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

The same as anyone else, so as I said before, no need to go there and waste time.

Everyone else considers these fossils to be transitional between us and a common ancestor with other apes:

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

 

[nuttypiglet]

Considering that some people say that every organism, not just every fossil, is transitional, whereas you deny that there actually are transitionals in the fossil record, the evidence suggests that "everyone else" does not necessarily have the same definition.

But I'll make it easier on you. Instead of asking for a formal definition, I'll just ask for an example of the kind of thing you would call a transitional. What kind of features mark something as transitional?

This isn't some kind of school playground where you get to play teacher. This is a forum. If I am shown a fossil which to me doesn't seem transitional, then I will say so. That's my absolute right. To be shown a fossil of something which is part lizard and part bird, doesn't make it either. It could be a transitional fossil, but others are needed to fill more gaps to make it conclusive. Until then it could just be a species in its own right, and not anything to do with transitions.

 

[Loudmouth]

This isn't some kind of school playground where you get to play teacher. This is a forum. If I am shown a fossil which to me doesn't seem transitional, then I will say so.

What criteria are you using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

To be shown a fossil of something which is part lizard and part bird, doesn't make it either. It could be a transitional fossil, but others are needed to fill more gaps to make it conclusive.

How do you determine which features a fossil would need to have in order to fill in those gaps?

 

[EternalDragon]

We have species that are in the midst of evolving. We can see what similarities are kept and what differences produce the species split. The "mere similarities" in the fossil record, and in the genomes, etc all agree with one another and with the explanation in cladistics and other branches of evolutionary science. It is more than a possibility as you suggest, but more like a 95% certainty.

But have you observed it?

 

[nuttypiglet]

What criteria are you using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?



How do you determine which features a fossil would need to have in order to fill in those gaps?

If I show you a fossil of a bird and then one of a lizard, neither look similar, and I tell you one evolved from the other, obviously you wouldn't accept that as evidence. Now If I show you one which is roughly 50-50, you would think Hmm, maybe, but we need to fill the gaps on either side. That's what I'm looking for, more gaps being filled with GRADUAL changes. At the moment it's like, here we have a half bird/half lizard with no fixed femur and many other structures wrong to be a bird, and being expected to believe one evolved from the other. We could just as easily say that the lizard evolved from the bird in that case because the intermediate details are missing.

 

[OllieFranz]

But have you observed it?

Not always personally and directly. So what?

When selecting a jury for a case at law, direct witnesses, and people who personally know the suspect or the victim are excluded. All of the jurors have to rely on the evidence presented at trial. Does that mean they can never convict a guilty suspect?

 

[lasthero]

Now If I show you one which is roughly 50-50, you would think Hmm, maybe, but we need to fill the gaps on either side. That's what I'm looking for, more gaps being filled with GRADUAL changes.

There are other species that show birds transitioning - the Youtube video I provided a few pages back had some good examples, and you can look at them in more detail, here.

www.transitionalfossils.com

Regardless, there's always going to be a gap of some kind, no matter how many fossils we produce - every fossil we find just creates two gaps on both sides. So how many do you need to see, and why do you feel it's a fair number?

At the moment it's like, here we have a half bird/half lizard with no fixed femur and many other structures wrong to be a bird, and being expected to believe one evolved from the other

Again, there are other 'birds' in the lineage. Archeopteryx is just the most famous. No one said or expected archeopteryx to have all the features of a bird, but it does have many of them. As for the femur, this might give you some insight.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007390

We could just as easily say that the lizard evolved from the bird in that case because the intermediate details are missing.

We could, but that wouldn't make any sense, given the progression of the fossil record. You seem to be under the impression that we just found one bird with reptilian traits or a reptile with bird traits and based everything off that solitary fossil. It's a little more complicated than that.

I can't help but feel you're moving the goalposts a bit, here, nutty. Before, you said you were willing to go with what anyone else labeled as a transitional fossil - Archeopteryx meets that definition, plain and simple, so your requirements have been met. Now you seem to be going for more what you, personally, consider to be transitional, which wasn't the initial criteria.

 

[EternalDragon]

Not always personally and directly. So what?

When selecting a jury for a case at law, direct witnesses, and people who personally know the suspect or the victim are excluded. All of the jurors have to rely on the evidence presented at trial. Does that mean they can never convict a guilty suspect?

Because it seems a bit imaginary to me. All I have seen stated here is "similarities". If you based a court trail on similarities like evolution has, it would fail.

 

[lasthero]

All I have seen stated here is "similarities".

How do you know that dogs originally came from wolves?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it seems a bit imaginary to me. All I have seen stated here is "similarities". If you based a court trail on similarities like evolution has, it would fail.

Really? It seems to work quite often to me.

 

[lasthero]

What are you talking about? Courts never used DNA evidence to convict suspects.

Oh. Wait.

 

[EternalDragon]

What are you talking about? Courts never used DNA evidence to convict suspects.

Oh. Wait.

Wrong analogy.

 

[lasthero]

Wrong analogy.

No, it's the right one. We use DNA evidence to convict criminals that no one ever saw commit a crime, and we can use it to trace ancestry.

 

[OllieFranz]

Wrong analogy.

It is not an analogy. It is the same science. The very same DNA mapping that IDs a suspect (or exonerates him) is used in paternity tests and in genealogy research. And it is in exactly the same way you can use DNA to discover that you are directly descended from Ghengis Kahn (which a surprisingly high number of people with some Asian ancestry are), that we discover that we share most of our DNA, including specific mutations and viral insertions in exactly the same locations, with chimps and bonobos. And only slightly less with gorillas, etc.

 

[[serious]]

If I show you a fossil of a bird and then one of a lizard, neither look similar, and I tell you one evolved from the other, obviously you wouldn't accept that as evidence. Now If I show you one which is roughly 50-50, you would think Hmm, maybe, but we need to fill the gaps on either side. That's what I'm looking for, more gaps being filled with GRADUAL changes. At the moment it's like, here we have a half bird/half lizard with no fixed femur and many other structures wrong to be a bird, and being expected to believe one evolved from the other. We could just as easily say that the lizard evolved from the bird in that case because the intermediate details are missing.

Ok, you are looking for the 50/50, but also the 75/25 and 25/75. That's a reasonable request. In fact, I'll give you 2 on each side.

Now let's call the archeopterix the 50/50 transitional. It's the best known one and is considered to be right on that line of dinosaur/bird.

Now, on the dinosaur side of that, we have:
Anchiornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a feathered therapod which some once argued should be considered the first bird. We also have a remarkably well preserved specimen to the point that feather coloration could largely be determined.
Juravenator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia More dinosaur than Anchiornis, but still a feathered theropod. These feathers are rather primitive proto-feathers and at least some parts of the body had dinosaur like scales as well.

On the bird side, we have:
Confuciusornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia an early bird which still retained claws on it's forelimbs. It's the first bird we know of to have a true beak. It was probably capable of only limited and possibly no flapping flight, but appears to be capable of soaring flight. Initial height for this may have been obtained by climbing trees.
Ichthyornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia another primative bird, but much closer to modern birds. No functional claws are present on the forelimbs. It appears to have been a strong flier with a modern breastbone and wings.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

"Oh, look" says the puddle, "that this hole in which I live has been so perfectly and accurately designed for my existence, surely gives evidence of my Creator...!"

I love that quote, it sums it up creationism perfectly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because it seems a bit imaginary to me. All I have seen stated here is "similarities". If you based a court trail on similarities like evolution has, it would fail.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Ok, you are looking for the 50/50, but also the 75/25 and 25/75. That's a reasonable request. In fact, I'll give you 2 on each side.

Now let's call the archeopterix the 50/50 transitional. It's the best known one and is considered to be right on that line of dinosaur/bird.

Now, on the dinosaur side of that, we have:
Anchiornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a feathered therapod which some once argued should be considered the first bird. We also have a remarkably well preserved specimen to the point that feather coloration could largely be determined.
Juravenator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia More dinosaur than Anchiornis, but still a feathered theropod. These feathers are rather primitive proto-feathers and at least some parts of the body had dinosaur like scales as well.

On the bird side, we have:
Confuciusornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia an early bird which still retained claws on it's forelimbs. It's the first bird we know of to have a true beak. It was probably capable of only limited and possibly no flapping flight, but appears to be capable of soaring flight. Initial height for this may have been obtained by climbing trees.
Ichthyornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia another primative bird, but much closer to modern birds. No functional claws are present on the forelimbs. It appears to have been a strong flier with a modern breastbone and wings.

Are you not the slightest bit worried about fossils that are found in China? after all, they have fooled science before. It also seems a bit of a coincidence that fossils being searched for just so happen to pop up in China. They are the world leaders at producing fakes, good enough to fool almost anyone. In fact, some of their fake products are so convincing that they have to be sent to the REAL producers of the goods for verification. Just stating facts. You would be surprised at how many fake goods are smuggled into the UK from China, anything from top brand watches to televisions and mobile phones.

 

[JWGU]

Are you not the slightest bit worried about fossils that are found in China? after all, they have fooled science before. It also seems a bit of a coincidence that fossils being searched for just so happen to pop up in China. They are the world leaders at producing fakes, good enough to fool almost anyone. In fact, some of their fake products are so convincing that they have to be sent to the REAL producers of the goods for verification. Just stating facts. You would be surprised at how many fake goods are smuggled into the UK from China, anything from top brand watches to televisions and mobile phones.

Just to be clear--if they were found to be genuine, or the same fossils had been found outside of China, would that be enough to convince you that birds evolved from reptiles? Is your only hangup where the fossils were found?