Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, to be fair it is more than just one fish with legs. So the question becomes, how many transitional fossils is it that you would need to see, to believe? 5? 10? 100? 1,000?
That is why it is inherently unreliable evidence, leave too much to interpretation, because the moment we say the gaps are big enough as evidence of creation, you will say they look like movie framesGish's Law: "Every new transitional fossil creates two new gaps that aren't fillled."
If you had a slow motion film of every single moment, creationists would ask what was between the frames.
The idea of a transitional fossil is elusive by nature as this is based upon evolutionary assumptions/speculation/imagination and is developed based ultimately how a fossil looks (assuming it was even complete and assembled correctly - like a puzzle missing pieces with no box and no picture).Gish's Law: "Every new transitional fossil creates two new gaps that aren't fillled."
If you had a slow motion film of every single moment, creationists would ask what was between the frames.
You may be told that common ancestry is a scientific fact... that you and I came from some protozoa 3.7 billion years ago, but what gets labeled as "fact" in science has gradually become more and more loose. If we want things like absolute facts and absolute truth, there is only one source - The word of God.That is why it is inherently unreliable evidence, leave too much to interpretation, because the moment we say the gaps are big enough as evidence of creation, you will say they look like movie frames
I am just asking repeatable, verifiable testable evidences since you feel so strongly that common ancestry is a scientific fact. Is that too much to ask for?
The thing is, this is all speculative, i.e. only a piece of puzzle, but if you tweak it toward evolution, I can tweak to creation as well, and it definitely suit creation better, since in programming, we use the libraries/coding styles all the time, and you can definitely see how new projects uses old codes. It is very clear to me that God created different things in different stages, and you might not find rabbits at certain stages.
It is very clear to me that God created different things in different stages, and you might not find rabbits at certain stages.
The idea of a transitional fossil is elusive by nature
Both secular and creation scientists agree that unrelated life forms can and do develop similar characteristics while living in a shared environment over time. So, in the case of Tiktaalik, Acanthotega, and Ichthyostega we cannot really say with 100% certainty they are transitional steps from kind A to kind B.
The transitional forms between fish and tetrapods has more to do with an artist's rendering and 3D modeling capabilities and the imagination of scientists, than actual real evidence.
Though life can diversify within created kinds, God created fish and fish remain fish, and God created tetrapods and tetrapods remain tetrapods.
Given the apparent loose interpretations that constitute a 'transitional fossil' by secular standards,
there has yet to be demonstrated transitions for Trilobites
Further, fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Also dragonflies - the highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record there is not a single unequivocal transitional form proving a causal relationship between any two kinds (such as fish > tetrapods, dinosaurs > birds, etc...).
Whatever "truth" one seeks, one will find it - just as many have found the "truth" that no god exists (the Atheist), which you and I see as the living out of 2 Peter 3:5. So philosophically it stands to reason that if we are looking for transitional forms, they will be found;
That is why it is inherently unreliable evidence, leave too much to interpretation, because the moment we say the gaps are big enough as evidence of creation, you will say they look like movie frames
I am just asking repeatable, verifiable testable evidences since you feel so strongly that common ancestry is a scientific fact. Is that too much to ask for?
The problem with tweaking it toward creation, in the sense of instantaneous appearance of animals, is that...
What is Gods logic behind it?
For example, why create a paleonmastodon, then destroy it, then create something like a paleomastodon but a little different, then destroy it, then create something slightly more different and destroy that, on and on and on?
Why create a theropod that has feathers and looks like a bird, then just whipe it out, then instantaneously create a bird with theropod like features, then just instantaneously whipe it out, then create a bird?
Why create fish, then wipe the fish out, then create fish that seemingly have legs and amphibian traits like an opposable neck and shoulder bones, then wipe that amphibian like fish out, then create an amphibian?
What is the logic behind it? And further, why does this logic, match genetic phylogeny? Why can a geneticist who knows nothing about fossils, make a prediction based on the DNA of amphibians, where a fossil like tiktaalik would be? Tiktaalik could have been found anywhere on the planet at any depth beneath the earth. But it wasnt anywhere, it was right where it was predicted to be based on evolution.
If instantaneous creation were the way God created life, it would appear instantaneously, it wouldnt appear as a succession of fossils.
And this is the question that, I have yet to hear any creationist (instantaneous young earth creation) answer.
As I just pointed out, the key is not that so many transitional forms exist. It's that they don't exist where evolutionary theory says that they shouldn't be. So no feathered mammals. This is compelling evidence for anyone who cares about evidence.
It's easy. Transitional forms were predicted before they were found, but never where they aren't supposed to be. Genetic data has confirmed the phylogenies worked out on the basis of anatomical data. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
Homologous organs are one more demonstration of common descent. There's no good reason for humans to have knees and spines that are more suitable for a quadruped. But we evolved from quadrupeds and sothey are imperfectly evolved for bipedal life. So feet, knees, hips, and spines are prone to a lot of problems. Could have been better done from scratch, but common descent dictates otherwise.
I am not aware of anything in evolution theory that says there can't be feathered mammals.
Mind to share a link? I don't think it have anything to do with proof, but just curious to know.
Well, it would say it is simple logic that just because you predicted something and it come true, does not make the theory right (it only means your theory is right on that spot).
Evolutionary theory says apomorphic characters of other taxa don't show up in other lineages. So feathers should be only found in birds, dinosaurs, and maybe their common ancestor.
On the other hand, Huxley, based on anatomical data, predicted there would be feathered transitions between dinosaurs and birds. And later, these were found.
Theories are judged on their ability to make successful predictions. Some other predictions:
- Transitional forms between ungulates and whales
- Transitional forms between salamanders and frogs
- Transitional forms between turtles and primitive anapsids without shells.
- Transitional forms between cockroaches and termites.
- The rise of antibiotic resistance in mammals.
- A chromosome fusion in chromosome 2 in humans
- DNA relatedness should follow the phylogenies first noted by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist)
- Anatomically modern humans first evolved in Africa
- Speciation should happen in small, isolated populations.
- Allele frequencies in a population should remain constant unless there is selective pressure.
There's a lot more. Do you need more?
I already said, all those predication are only assistant evidence, for example if someone engineered a mammal with features it does not mean the end of evolution theory.
And you can't say a hypthosis is scientific fact just because some prediction come true. I already give you an example, given a function(x) that satifis point (0,1), I can argue it is a line, and it indeed pass through (1,0), satify my prediction, but it can actualy be an oval. Predictions doesn't mean much, repeatable, verifiable tests are the most important ones. I can easily have 2 similar functions that have a unlimited set of predications that come true, but one is the real and the other is fake.
Have we checked that we can simulate such tests that we can mutate genes of mammals to change their hand to wings
and prove that they can occure in natural conditions?
No. "Transitional" is just a defined set of imaginary steps that scientists loosely classify as an "in-between" and are built upon a false set of assumptions in the case of assuming kind A evolves into kind B, hence why creationists reject them.No. It merely requires that it have apomorphic characters of two different groups. Hence, even creationists can identify them.
Read Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Kurt Wise CEN Tech j. , Vol. 9, no. 2 1995
The "predictability" you speak of is like me predicting I will find sand on a beach. Over the thousands of years since creation there has been a great deal of diversification in kinds and therefore it is easy think one had predicted something will occur when the reality is that God has designed kind A and kind B and built intelligence into their respective DNA to adapt to shared environments. Nobody has predicted anything. God has created life to adapt to its environment and as such can develop similar qualities/characteristics within completely unrelated kinds.By definition, they are. More importantly, evolutionary theory predicted them before they were discovered. Such predictions, if confirmed, are strong evidence for the truth of the theory.
No they are not, most fossils are incomplete and damaged, hence why they get assembled incorrectly from time to time (ex. attempts to create transitional fossils of whales only to later find a more complete fossil later which dispels the incorrect construction of the earlier fossil). I've provided links before on this where scientists have discussed that their earlier set of assumptions were incorrect.No. The characteristics of these transitionals are clearly preserved in the fossils.
They are their own kind.Unless they are snakes or caecilians.
Based on, "hey it looks like a half-way version of the other, they must be a transitional form". You can add on as many polysyllabic terms for how these visual characteristics are identified, classified, and organized, but it boils down to imagination... especially since nobody was there to take pictures and write down detailed descriptions of their behavior - much is left to imagination and speculation.There's a very precise definition:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Transitional forms
Thank you for showing me varieties of the trilobite kind with no common ancestor. Lines up perfectly with the Bible.
(there are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms and complex invertebrates
Living fossils resembling chordates have been found - chordata kind did not become fish kind... again, presuppositional bias not based upon biblical truth.
They didn't. Vertebrates evolved from chordates, animals with a notochord.
And I quote, "... larvae look very much like..." - see, as I have been saying, all based upon speculation and visual imagination.And the evidence shows that they evolved from their fellow deutrerostomes by paedomorphisis:
Tunicates:
Notice the tunicate larvae look very much like primitive chordates, right down to the notochord.
Good, dragonfly evolved from.... the dragonfly, as created by God.
The Palaeodictyopteroidea.
Yes, we agree here! God's word lines up with each kind being created in the beginning. God's word does not at all align with kind A becoming kind B as it explicitly states God created each according to their kind. In other words, stating that kind A evolves into kind B is unbiblical.And so on. God's word is entirely consistent with this evidence.
The fact that all of these have been labeled as transitioning from one kind into a completely different kind is actually just strong evidence that my statement in post #143 is correct:No, that's wrong. For example, we have a complete line of transitionals between fish and tetrapods:
The fact that all these transitionals have been found is strong evidence for evolution. But even stronger is the fact that there are no transitionals where evolutionary theory says they should not be. No feathered mammals. No arthropods with bones. No penguins with gills.
So we know that they indicated common descent.
Evolutionary theory says apomorphic characters of other taxa don't show up in other lineages. So feathers should be only found in birds, dinosaurs, and maybe their common ancestor.
Maybe one of the reason for that is to troll you
OK just kidding. But as I explained again and again, it is the exact same beheavior as how software developed. We keep building faster machines, develop new ways of doing things, and we keep on adding on top of what we have, and sometimes when there are leaps in technology, we drop old things all together.
Besides, God's creation also creates, humans is only one of them, there were "sons of God", some claim are fallen angels, that created giants etc, which God wipped most out with the flood. However it appears one of Noah's sons has the polluted DNA from the nehlims.
You are mistaken. You asked for a test of common descent and The Barbarian supplied chromosome 2. You replied that the fusion was mere speculation and could not be tested. That claim is what I was responding to. We can test the hypothesis that human chromosome 2 results from a fusion. I just don't think the occurrence of that fusion is particularly good evidence for common descent.I am not mistaken. I asked for a repeatable verifable test for common descent of human and apes, and chromosome 2 fusion is exactly the thing you provided.
Sorry, I wasn't completely explicit: I meant an alternative explanation that anyone would actually entertain as plausible. Every possible scientific test can always be explained by "undetectable aliens manipulated the results." Your DNA showed up on the murder victim? Undetectable aliens planted it there. Try that in court and see how far you get.I am not confused, as your test described above got way too many flows. Now let's assume it is some "aliens" that created life on earth, based on your steps I can create the following so called test (with your word substituted, from mutation to the aliens reused prior DNA like a library):
developing the hypothesis (change "common descent" to alien creation)
constructing the test ("interspecies differences should look like mutations in the following ways" change mutations to DNA reuse)
and applying the test to real data ("interspecies differences among primates look exactly like mutations" again change mutations to "DNA reuse")
I believe I already linked to the kind of evidence you say doesn't exist: one species changing gradually into another. What was wrong with it?And because we don't see any fossile evidence of one sort of species very gradually changing to other species
I reject God? Huh? When did that happen?Since you reject God I simple substitude God to alien so you can see clearly.
Hi K-BIF, I realize this is an older post and you are discussing with dcalling so this is just me sharing my thoughts. No need to respond if this becomes overly cumbersome or you feel you are having to repeat yourself.The problem with tweaking it toward creation, in the sense of instantaneous appearance of animals, is that...
What is Gods logic behind it?
God's word does not say how many variations He created of each kind. If we assume He created 1 for each kind, we know each kind would go into different environments as it filled the earth so each would need to adapt to the environment. Just as people who are of European descent look different than people of African descent and people of Asian descent, etc... even though we all exist at exactly the same time. One is not destroyed then another created.
For example, why create a paleonmastodon, then destroy it, then create something like a paleomastodon but a little different, then destroy it, then create something slightly more different and destroy that, on and on and on?
Theropods (dinosaurs) with feathers is speculative. I know you believe Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds but it has never been unequivocally demonstrated that these alleged 'proto-feathers' are what became feathers as seen on birds. Scales are nothing like feathers and even the patterning of bird feathers follows nothing like what is seen on Archaeopteryx. Again, it is imagination that carries what is seen on Arcaeopteryx to being a fully functional complex system of feathers as exists on birds... a completely different kind from Theropods.Why create a theropod that has feathers and looks like a bird, then just whipe it out, then instantaneously create a bird with theropod like features, then just instantaneously whipe it out, then create a bird?
Why create fish, then wipe the fish out, then create fish that seemingly have legs and amphibian traits like an opposable neck and shoulder bones, then wipe that amphibian like fish out, then create an amphibian?
The term "genetic" in this context gives the impression of greater knowledge than is actually possessed. Genetic phylogeny is a polysyllabic term for an inferred relationship based upon physical or genetic characteristics. Since no DNA exists the assumed hundreds of millions of years of when these creatures existed, one moves on to simple physical characteristics... again, of fossils - not the same as seeing the creature actually living. So again, it comes down to imagination filling in what is believe to be transitional steps between unrelated kinds.What is the logic behind it? And further, why does this logic, match genetic phylogeny? Why can a geneticist who knows nothing about fossils, make a prediction based on the DNA of amphibians, where a fossil like tiktaalik would be? Tiktaalik could have been found anywhere on the planet at any depth beneath the earth. But it wasnt anywhere, it was right where it was predicted to be based on evolution.
God did create life on Days 3, 5, and 6 as it is written. We do see complex life whose traces cannot be linked back to a LUCA. The paradigm you are operating under assumes that the geologic column represents billions of years based upon Lyellian uniformitarianism, who ironically studied under William Buckland (a creation scientist), but Lyell had issues with linking geological processes back to the supernatural events described in the Bible. No mincing of words here, this is rejecting God's word and in effect, rejecting God. The paradigm you operate under (uniformitarianism) has two unfalsifiable assumptions: uniformity of law and uniformity of process. Things like gradualism and naturalism are the vehicles for all geological processes even though it is clearly stated that God created the earth along with all of creation so the supernatural created the natural. The geologic column is interpreted under the uniformitarian paradigm as a successive series of events over a long time. In contrast a biblical creation scientist would see the geologic column as evidence for the global flood of Noah's time and the sequence has more to do with physical location at the time of the flood than location in time. This is why 70% of the geological column is missing more than half of the strata, why a complete column is only found less than 1% of the time, why there are polystrate fossils, and why the column is even sometimes found completely inverted.... it's not a orderly layering of time but the result of a global catastrophe, according to creationist scientists.If instantaneous creation were the way God created life, it would appear instantaneously, it wouldnt appear as a succession of fossils.
And this is the question that, I have yet to hear any creationist (instantaneous young earth creation) answer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?