Looking for all the missing links

[Jazer]

My question is the following:

So they're the same "Kind"? How would you define a kind?

A kind is something that can reproduce itself.

 

[Guy1]

A kind is something that can reproduce itself.

So basically if two animals can bring forth?

 

[good brother]

We seem to have derailed pretty quickly. The intent of this thread is to discuss where all the missing links are and how are we expected to believe millions and millions of changes over billions of years with just the scant few fossils we have somehow requires less faith than what is asked of us in the Bible.

Carry on.


GB

 

[verysincere]

We seem to have derailed pretty quickly. The intent of this thread is to discuss where all the missing links are and how are we expected to believe millions and millions of changes over billions of years with just the scant few fossils we have somehow requires less faith than what is asked of us in the Bible.

What may appear to you to be "derailed pretty quickly" is simply a recognition that your premise is flawed. Consult any textbook or go directly to the academic journals. It is simply FALSE to claim (1) that there are "scant few fossils", and (2) that there is any failed expectations as to sufficient fossil records, and (3) that "faith" in any sort of quantity is involved. Your intent may be to continue the thread but you are kicking a dead horse.

Now there are plenty of specialists of various taxonomic groups who WISH that more fossils would be found to help provide more details for their particular part of the picture --- and over time those wishes get fulfilled again and again---but it is difficult for anyone here to discuss a hypothetical which simply doesn't exist. And this is ESPECIALLY true when fossil evidence plays no role in the original FOUNDATIONS of the theory of evolution (despite how much Ken Ham and Kent Hovind wish it were, because they have so much polemical sermon material which works well with the scientifically ill-informed.)

I know you are unlikely to take the advice of a previous post where he encouraged you to actually read a basic biology textbook or visit any of a number excellent evolution fundamentals website. But you are going to continue to misconstrue the basics until you learn at least a few definitions and the essential mechanisms of evolution. (On the other hand, as to the various explanations you've been given, even by professionals in the field, and the analogies and illustrations: I don't believe for a moment that you are unable to add 2 and 2 and get 4. Pretending to not understand very simple illustrations or concocting silly tangential conclusions is not a defense of your flawed premise. It simply encourages readers to assume that you don't care about the facts and that you are playing a game. That has NEVER worked well for the "creation science" apologists, even if it pleases the choir. Everybody else simply shakes their heads in awe. And it explains much of my frustration and concern for its impact on the Kingdom's progress in America and elsewhere. Do we want the Ken Ham types of shape the public's perception of the teachings of Jesus? Surely not.)

With that eulogy and due disrespect shown the thread's corpse, it is time that I moved on.


.

 

[juvenissun]

We see evolutionary change all the time. Doesn't that mean it is continuous?

We do see changes today in laboratory under microscope. But we do not see changes in fossil record. The reason is that we do not see a continuous variation on fossil record. So we do not know if they were changes or not.

So, in the concern of the OP, we do not see evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

What may appear to you to be "derailed pretty quickly" is simply a recognition that your premise is flawed. Consult any textbook or go directly to the academic journals. It is simply FALSE to claim (1) that there are "scant few fossils", and (2) that there is any failed expectations as to sufficient fossil records, and (3) that "faith" in any sort of quantity is involved. Your intent may be to continue the thread but you are kicking a dead horse.

Do you know how little the fossil record really is? In %.
Why don't you use this fact to make argument to your favor? Do you know how to do that? Do you want me, a creationist, to teach you how to argue FOR evolution?

 

[Split Rock]

We seem to have derailed pretty quickly. The intent of this thread is to discuss where all the missing links are and how are we expected to believe millions and millions of changes over billions of years with just the scant few fossils we have somehow requires less faith than what is asked of us in the Bible.

Carry on.


GB

Your math is off again... "millions and millions" of changes? I gave you are good example of a rich fossil record of evolutionary change from reptiles to mammals. What else do you want? How much wouldn't qualify as "scant?"

 

[Split Rock]

We do see changes today in laboratory under microscope. But we do not see changes in fossil record. The reason is that we do not see a continuous variation on fossil record. So we do not know if they were changes or not.

So, in the concern of the OP, we do not see evolution.

The fossil record is discontinuous in many cases by its very nature.

 

[verysincere]

Do you want me, a creationist, to teach you how to argue FOR evolution?

Not until you learn what it is.


Remember, we've read your posts. Of course, if you've got it all figured out and are qualified to teach us, why don't you publish your debunking of the theory of evolution in an appropriate journal and become rich and famous? (And you would earn immediate tenure at virtually any university in the world. That would sure beat that faculty contract you keep renewing annually as an Assistant Professor at $75,000, wouldn't it? Don't you have any ambition to strengthen your C.V. and have some security?)

Earn tenure and then we'll talk. (Yes, that is called an argument from authority. But it is not a fallacy. Investigate the difference.)



.

 

[USincognito]

Let me know what you all think of the letter...

I think you're yanking our chain.

No, seriously. As a straw man it's fantastic. As a serious inquiry into transitional fossils it's terminally inane.

There's a couple of things you need to learn or be reminded of.

1. "Missing link" is an archaic 19th Century term that suggests there be one single example of a being that was "half X and half Y". Just by using the term, you're undermining your claim that there should be "bazillions of them".

2. Are you familiar with the American Bison and the Passenger Pigeon? When Europeans arrived on this continent, they lived in numbers that are nearly unimaginable to us today. Herds of bison would pass through areas taking days to do so. Flocks of passenger pigeons would nearly blot out the sun for hours as hundreds of millions of them would fly overhead. It's calculated that the only living beings that outflocked them were the Rocky Mountain locust. By the 20th Century, both were nearly extinct with the passenger pigeon succumbing in 1914.

So, do we see "bazillions" of bison and passenger pigeon carcasses lying around in the process of fossilization? According to your logic, nearly every single thing that dies should be fossilized in be in a place where we can recover it easily. Therefore we should expect to have bazillions of bison and pigeon fossils in the works, right?

Well, no. Not everything fossilizes. Sometimes every individual of every species of every genus in a family is eaten, decomposes fully or dies in an environment not conducive to fossilization. That is why fossilization is a rare event - especially for terrestrial tetrapods.

3. You've asked for examples of transitional fossils and I'm expec... no, I know you'll ignore, handwave or move the goalposts on every example, but a great Wikipedia entry for starters. Feel free to plug random ones into a search engine and get back to us if you have any questions.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[good brother]

I think you're yanking our chain.

No, seriously. As a straw man it's fantastic. As a serious inquiry into transitional fossils it's terminally inane.

There's a couple of things you need to learn or be reminded of.

1. "Missing link" is an archaic 19th Century term that suggests there be one single example of a being that was "half X and half Y". Just by using the term, you're undermining your claim that there should be "bazillions of them".

2. Are you familiar with the American Bison and the Passenger Pigeon? When Europeans arrived on this continent, they lived in numbers that are nearly unimaginable to us today. Herds of bison would pass through areas taking days to do so. Flocks of passenger pigeons would nearly blot out the sun for hours as hundreds of millions of them would fly overhead. It's calculated that the only living beings that outflocked them were the Rocky Mountain locust. By the 20th Century, both were nearly extinct with the passenger pigeon succumbing in 1914.

So, do we see "bazillions" of bison and passenger pigeon carcasses lying around in the process of fossilization? According to your logic, nearly every single thing that dies should be fossilized in be in a place where we can recover it easily. Therefore we should expect to have bazillions of bison and pigeon fossils in the works, right?

Well, no. Not everything fossilizes. Sometimes every individual of every species of every genus in a family is eaten, decomposes fully or dies in an environment not conducive to fossilization. That is why fossilization is a rare event - especially for terrestrial tetrapods.

3. You've asked for examples of transitional fossils and I'm expec... no, I know you'll ignore, handwave or move the goalposts on every example, but a great Wikipedia entry for starters. Feel free to plug random ones into a search engine and get back to us if you have any questions.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet I am sure you don't have any kind of problem believing some unicellular fossil survived for 3.45 BILLION (3,450,000,000) years in the Hadeon layer and it just HAPPENED to get discovered because some guys were in the right place at the right time under the right conditions, but I can't ask for more than two to three links from only a few million years ago. Gotcha.


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

What may appear to you to be "derailed pretty quickly" is simply a recognition that your premise is flawed. Consult any textbook or go directly to the academic journals. It is simply FALSE to claim (1) that there are "scant few fossils", and (2) that there is any failed expectations as to sufficient fossil records, and (3) that "faith" in any sort of quantity is involved. Your intent may be to continue the thread but you are kicking a dead horse.

Now there are plenty of specialists of various taxonomic groups who WISH that more fossils would be found to help provide more details for their particular part of the picture --- and over time those wishes get fulfilled again and again---but it is difficult for anyone here to discuss a hypothetical which simply doesn't exist. And this is ESPECIALLY true when fossil evidence plays no role in the original FOUNDATIONS of the theory of evolution (despite how much Ken Ham and Kent Hovind wish it were, because they have so much polemical sermon material which works well with the scientifically ill-informed.)

I know you are unlikely to take the advice of a previous post where he encouraged you to actually read a basic biology textbook or visit any of a number excellent evolution fundamentals website. But you are going to continue to misconstrue the basics until you learn at least a few definitions and the essential mechanisms of evolution. (On the other hand, as to the various explanations you've been given, even by professionals in the field, and the analogies and illustrations: I don't believe for a moment that you are unable to add 2 and 2 and get 4. Pretending to not understand very simple illustrations or concocting silly tangential conclusions is not a defense of your flawed premise. It simply encourages readers to assume that you don't care about the facts and that you are playing a game. That has NEVER worked well for the "creation science" apologists, even if it pleases the choir. Everybody else simply shakes their heads in awe. And it explains much of my frustration and concern for its impact on the Kingdom's progress in America and elsewhere. Do we want the Ken Ham types of shape the public's perception of the teachings of Jesus? Surely not.)

With that eulogy and due disrespect shown the thread's corpse, it is time that I moved on.


.

I note you never add evidence to your argument, just a bunch of hype about how bad creationists are. How about providing the plethora of evidence that supposedly exists?


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Your math is off again... "millions and millions" of changes? I gave you are good example of a rich fossil record of evolutionary change from reptiles to mammals. What else do you want? How much wouldn't qualify as "scant?"

You don't think there had to be millions and millions of changes over all those years? Crocoduck? You didn't offer up a "rich" record. How many transition forms do you think actually exist for each claim that is made by evolutionary theory? Take a look, it might shock you.

In Christ, GB

 

[KCfromNC]

How are you generating that number of missing links?

There's at least two between every known transitional fossil out there, right? Since we've got a ton of transitional fossils, there's an even bigger ton of gaps between them. Thus the more evidence we find of evolution, the more reason we have to believe that it's false.

 

[juvenissun]

The fossil record is discontinuous in many cases by its very nature.

There is no reason for that.

A particular environment may last for a million years or longer, and a similar or identical environment is likely to exist at many other places at the same time. A species evolved in that environment would have a good chance to preserve at least a small segments of its continuous evolution history. The shape of ape and human skull would be a good example, or the best example. Yet, we still see obvious discontinuity in their morphological change. Taphonomy does not apply well in this case.

Human has longer than one million years history. Do you see any positive indication on the morphological change of human? Why not? Because instead of changing continuously, it simply does not change.

 

[juvenissun]

Not until you learn what it is.


Remember, we've read your posts. Of course, if you've got it all figured out and are qualified to teach us, why don't you publish your debunking of the theory of evolution in an appropriate journal and become rich and famous? (And you would earn immediate tenure at virtually any university in the world. That would sure beat that faculty contract you keep renewing annually as an Assistant Professor at $75,000, wouldn't it? Don't you have any ambition to strengthen your C.V. and have some security?)

Earn tenure and then we'll talk. (Yes, that is called an argument from authority. But it is not a fallacy. Investigate the difference.)

Why don't you simply answer my question? How much fossils is preserved?

 

[juvenissun]

There's at least two between every known transitional fossil out there, right? Since we've got a ton of transitional fossils, there's an even bigger ton of gaps between them. Thus the more evidence we find of evolution, the more reason we have to believe that it's false.

So, YOU, an evolutionist, tell me how much gap between the two is acceptable as a continuity. Then we can use that to measure the rest of the fossil record.

Do you know how to do that? Do you want me to teach you how to answer this challenge?

 

[juvenissun]

I think you're yanking our chain.

No, seriously. As a straw man it's fantastic. As a serious inquiry into transitional fossils it's terminally inane.

There's a couple of things you need to learn or be reminded of.

1. "Missing link" is an archaic 19th Century term that suggests there be one single example of a being that was "half X and half Y". Just by using the term, you're undermining your claim that there should be "bazillions of them".

2. Are you familiar with the American Bison and the Passenger Pigeon? When Europeans arrived on this continent, they lived in numbers that are nearly unimaginable to us today. Herds of bison would pass through areas taking days to do so. Flocks of passenger pigeons would nearly blot out the sun for hours as hundreds of millions of them would fly overhead. It's calculated that the only living beings that outflocked them were the Rocky Mountain locust. By the 20th Century, both were nearly extinct with the passenger pigeon succumbing in 1914.

So, do we see "bazillions" of bison and passenger pigeon carcasses lying around in the process of fossilization? According to your logic, nearly every single thing that dies should be fossilized in be in a place where we can recover it easily. Therefore we should expect to have bazillions of bison and pigeon fossils in the works, right?

Well, no. Not everything fossilizes. Sometimes every individual of every species of every genus in a family is eaten, decomposes fully or dies in an environment not conducive to fossilization. That is why fossilization is a rare event - especially for terrestrial tetrapods.

3. You've asked for examples of transitional fossils and I'm expec... no, I know you'll ignore, handwave or move the goalposts on every example, but a great Wikipedia entry for starters. Feel free to plug random ones into a search engine and get back to us if you have any questions.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A good explanation on the basic idea of taphonomy. I think many of your evolution comrades in this thread should thank you for that.

Good point. Fossil preservation is a problem on land. If so, how about fossils preserved in marine environment? Is the fossil record preserved in marine shale more complete and more continuous? I am afraid it is not. Why not?

 

[Split Rock]

You don't think there had to be millions and millions of changes over all those years? Crocoduck? You didn't offer up a "rich" record. How many transition forms do you think actually exist for each claim that is made by evolutionary theory? Take a look, it might shock you.

In Christ, GB

You take a look. It may shock you how large the taxonomy of these transitionals are, but I doubt it will change your mind at all.

Cynodont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I count Twelve families in the Cynodontia suborder alone, in addition to other unranked groups. These were just the most immediate ancestors to mammals. How Much Is Enough?

 

[juvenissun]

You take a look. It may shock you how large the taxonomy of these transitionals are, but I doubt it will change your mind at all.

Cynodont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I count Twelve families in the Cynodontia suborder alone, in addition to other unranked groups. These were just the most immediate ancestors to mammals. How Much Is Enough?

This is only a classification problem. You can set up a system of criteria and classify everything according to what you set up. Of course, there will be one on each end and a bunch in the middle. This does not say anything about their genetic relationships.

I can list all shape/size/etc. of tables and claim one evolved into another. The evidence would be impressively strong.

If you like to, you could use one example to illustrate your point and we can examine if the classification is really genetically related. In spite of other boring arguments, I might even learn something from you by the example.