Looking for all the missing links

[createdtoworship]

You still haven't explained how the solar neutrino problem has not yet been solved.

you forgot this is a new forum, I haven't posted those creation links yet.

So go ahead and one up me by giving me a transition, that crosses genus domains.

 

[createdtoworship]

Guy1 I have provided a stack of links. However I find evos ignore them or do not understand them. If anyone looks through my posts they have numerous links, mostly from evolutionary research, for evolutionists to ignore.

I assume most of you with such strong views have some knowledge of what I feel is common knowledge for anyone that keeps up to date in the field they want to defend or debate.

Here is one on Rudolfensis

Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed


Here is something on the shrinking Turkana Boy of athletic fame.

Some authors have suggested that Homo erectus displayed these adaptations as adaptations to long distance running. Characters such as tall body size, large acetabula (where the femur meets the pelvis), and narrow torsos and pelves are used as evidence that Homo erectus was increasing locomotor efficiency. However, the pelvis from Gona displays none of these adaptations. Her bi-iliac breadth is wide, her ilia are flared laterally, her acetabula are tiny, and her pubic rami are long.
Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

Clearly it is going to be difficult trying to have a conversation with you. I would be spending 90% of my time educating you in the recent developments within the evolutionary myth you are hoping to defend.

The biggest point being that nothing I propose as a theoretical interpretation of any data could be worse than the 150 years of mess and delusionary support that evolutionists have to provide as I have spoken to the past few days. That is the point and one that clearly is factual and undeniable.

Evos do not have all the answers and creationists do not have to have all the answers either. However creationists do not need all the convolutions and excuses evos have had to rely on to explain the unexpected and such huge anomolies that indeed TOE should have been thrown out by now eg Human/chimp male Y chromosome.


Hence big brothers letter is a good reflection of the chaos and changing speculation evolutionists present as support for their theory.

Oh I nearly forgot here is the Y chromosome info you should already know about.

Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees


Thu, 2010-01-14 00:11 -- John Hawks

Holy crap!

Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
​

So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, "comparable to the difference ... in chicken and human".

This is from a new paper that's just shown up in the Nature advance publication zone. The authors are Jennifer Hughes and colleagues, and the subject is the first complete sequencing of the chimpanzee Y chromosome.
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

The Y chromosome comparison alone is sufficient to demonstrate mankind and chimpanzee are two separate creations. You can believe in 'accelerated genomic regions' and all the convoluted and debated speculations as to how the unpredicted and definitiely unexpected anomolies occured in evo terms if you wish. As for me, the most parsinomous explanation is that they were created independently.


I have already posted an article about the unquantifiable nature of genome comparisons as spoken to by your own evolutionary researchers. Perhaps you could actually read it and refute it if you disagree rather than going off on tangents. Demonstrate how natans is not like a seal as I have asserted. You do not refute me at all. What you do as many here do is resort to generalities, endless irrelevant questions and asides.

In the end you will believe what you want to believe eg sea lions that are ancestors to mouse deer, chimp ancestors like Lucy that have human feet, dinos that morphed into birds although modern bird footprints predate dinosaurs. Go for it and you are welcome to it.

However do not try to insinuate my level of reasoning ability, education or intelligence is lacking because I do not swallow these non plausible scenarios with glee, as you do. Do not accuse me of not being able to support my view because, my friend, I am one of those creationists that do not have any problem in providing support from your own muddle to support my assertions eg shrinking Turk and the Leakey woopsie!

I also see many evidences for creation not related to the thread topic. However, the fossil evidence, the cambrian sudden appearance of a variety of kinds, the sudden appearance of the seal and the deer, tetrapods 400mya at the close of the devonian that had no tails regardless of evo assumtions as to why etc. The excuses put forward under punctuated equilibrium as examples of the use of totally unrelated kinds misrepresented as intermediates. Entire species speculated from a single bone, an inability to get a recent fossil description correct in Neanderthal without the clarity of DNA sequencing. That is what I see. I see evidence that is more in line with creative events than evolutionary ones.

Why do you suggest 'the letter' offered by good brother is not a true reflection of the evolutionary status quo?

humans have nose ridges ape like creatures do not. Problem solved.

 

[createdtoworship]

I could have sworn I responded to this "challenge" already...

Oh yeah.. I did, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7652015-44/#post60543304

You responded by saying the whale transitionals were "whale like" and the horse transitionals were "horse like." I still haven't figured out how that is a refutation...

they are, so you need real transitions.

I asked you to provide a link between TWO things, (two genra) and this is the deffintion of macro evolution (if you look it up)

you provide horses, and whales, but no transition.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'll try to stick up for evos for a change just for fun.....

We have seen the beak on a bird get bigger and evos can give it a new name. Oh hang on a minute, it was still a bird and still a finch.

Maybe it is evolving into some creature like a beaked whale!

lol

 

[Split Rock]

they are, so you need real transitions.

I asked you to provide a link between TWO things, (two genra) and this is the deffintion of macro evolution (if you look it up)

you provide horses, and whales, but no transition.

What you asked for were transitionals above the species level. Everything I showed you were different genera, and different genera from anything alive today. Dorudon is a genus name. Merychippus is a genus name, etc. The modern horse is Equus. So, the transitional genus between Equus and Pliohippus is Dinohippus. You can call them all "horses" (as in "horse family") but they are not modern horses. Clear now? Anything else you want? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how a whale or horse transitional would not be "whale-like" or "horse-like", respectively. Wouldn't you just then claim it wasn't transitional because it looked nothing like a whale or horse?

 

[createdtoworship]

What you asked for were transitionals above the species level. Everything I showed you were different genera, and different genera from anything alive today. Dorudon is a genus name. Merychippus is a genus name, etc. The modern horse is Equus. So, the transitional genus between Equus and Pliohippus is Dinohippus. You can call them all "horses" (as in "horse family") but they are not modern horses. Clear now? Anything else you want? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how a whale or horse transitional would not be "whale-like" or "horse-like", respectively. Wouldn't you just then claim it wasn't transitional because it looked nothing like a whale or horse?

okay then have them breed and if they breed successfully with a hybrid then you can say that you have a hybrid between two genus.

But simply showing a list of several different animals is not enough. obviously.

 

[USincognito]

And if you were to wake up tomorrow convinced that Scientology was the "way the truth and the life," then you'd have to reinterpret scientific evidence to fit a Xenu worldview?

Save these sorts of "arguments" for apologetics threads. TYIA. Make the Creationists stick to the science.

 

[USincognito]

so can anyone knock me off my high horse and provide one transitional fossil that involves macro evolution

We keep providing them to you and you keep pretending we haven't.

Tiktaalik - Sarcopterygii (class) --> Tetrapodmorpha (subclass)
Horse evolution - Equidae (family) --> Equus (genus)
Whale evolution - Cetartodactylia (clade between a superorder and an order) --> Cetaceans (order)
etc. etc.

 

[USincognito]

Don't join the group of clowns and lower down yourself. Participate.

You might want to invest in a sense of irony.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Guy1

It is really easy to be famous. The only skill you need behind a relevant credential is to be a master story teller.

If you want to be J. K. Rowling, perhaps. To be a famous scientist, you need proper evidence.

You can tell any story you like pretty much by finding any old bone and suggesting any non plausible scenario to accomodate it into an evolutionary paradigm. You will have your hour of fame just like the Leakeys did before they were accused of grossely misrepresenting Rudolfensis and the shrinking of Turkana Boy the pelvic mutant.

How were they accused of "grossly misrepresenting Rudolfensis"? A single fossil was found, and scientific debate about its position in human evolution, the skull has been reconstructed using more advanced knowledge of proto-human/mammal anatomy compared to what was known in 1972. But where is the "controversy" and the "gross misrepresentation".

Again, you seem to be concentrating on the strongest point of science, which is that evidence and theories are examined and re-examined and that improvements are made over time giving us a better and better understanding. This is a very good thing which is why science works so well. But you just pretend that there's something "wrong" with it.

You have heard the mess of misrepresentation I think of what evos suggest is the best so called speculative evidence they have for evolution in the whale.

Where is the mis-representation from the evolutionary perspective. We did find significant obvious falsehoods on the "Answers in Genesis" website, but where is the mis-representation in the current best theory on evolution of whales.

Here is the story of horse evolution, another purported strong testimony to evolution. For decades the gradual change in size of the horse was shoved down creationists throats as being undeniable evidence of macro evolution.

The fossil horses aligned from right to left in the front of the display represent the evolution of horses as a steady progression along a single pathway -- until recently a widely held view of evolution. Here the horse is seen to evolve in a neat, predictable line, gradually getting larger, with fewer toes and longer teeth. Those arranged (also from right to left) in the back present a more current scientific view of evolution, determined through a method of analysis called cladistics, which has shown evolution to be a more complex, branching history, much like the genealogical history of your own family.
The Evolution of Horses

Again, we now have an improved, better, understanding of how horses evolved. And how is this any less evidence of evolution than what we had before.

Again, you're saying that "science has led to improved understanding of evolution - therefore evolution is false". That's what it looks like to me.

See this guy below wrote a book and was wrong. Libraries have mountains of this stuff evolutionists call mountains of evidence, that are actually mountains of rubbish.

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...2&jid=GEO&volumeId=130&issueId=06&aid=4467028

But you can't come up with a strong reason to say why they are "mountains of rubbish". You give evidence that scientific theories have been refined, and then just try to claim that this suggests that they are mountains of rubbish. You don't actually say how improvement of theories argues against those theories. You have walls of text, but you fail to support the logic (or illogic) of your central argument.

When you are called on this, you just come back with more evidence that science acquires new evidence and refines and improves its theories over time. But you never say why this improvement is somehow "wrong".

The same goes for junk DNA and the decades of shoving this totally non functional evolutionary remnant of vestigiality down creationists throats. Of course creationists always predicted that non coding DNA would be found to be functional rather than an evolutionary remnant and that has been and continues to be validated as we speak. That is what 'good science' is meant to look like.

some DNA previously classified as junk has been found to have a function. But, for the typical creationist argument to hold, all junk DNA would have to be found to have a function. Do you have evidence that there is no true junk DNA?

If you want fame don't bother becoming a real scientist, become an evolutionary researcher of some kind. They are in one of the few proffesions where one can become famous, be consistently wrong and not get fired.

Actually, even your own examples show that evolutionary researchers have strived to find the truth. And the best examples you can come up with, e.g. horse evolution, only show that evolutionary researchers have improved their theories. So, where is your backing for this last statement?

You fail to understand what it means for scientific theories to be approximations that are successively refined. Newton was "wrong" by your description, because his theories of physics were refined by others, notably Einstein. But Newton was far, far, more right than he was wrong. The same applies in evolution as it does in other sciences. You seem to be suggesting that because theories have been refined, that means that the previous theory was 100% wrong. But like Newton, these previous theories (e.g. an incorrect ordering of horses in early models of horse evolution) are more right than they are wrong, in that they still showed that horses slowly acquired their distinctive features, though just not in quite the order that was previously thought.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

If you want to be J. K. Rowling, perhaps. To be a famous scientist, you need proper evidence.

Andrew Wakefield is famous. And he's notorious for never having had any proper evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

We keep providing them to you and you keep pretending we haven't.


--> Cetaceans (order)
etc. etc.

Whale evolution - Cetartodactylia (clade between a superorder and an order)

whale evolution cracks me up:

this is similiar:

to this???

Wow, I mean wow. Wake up, one is a hippo. One a whale.

Horse evolution - Equidae (family) --> Equus (genus)

provide the specific name of the animal in question, thanks

Tiktaalik - Sarcopterygii (class) --> Tetrapodmorpha (subclass)

simple, it's a lobe-finned "fish" like creature .

Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. Like nearly all bony fishes, these fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gills.

Regarding lungs: there are several fish that have the ability to shortly breath air. The mudskipper and various amphibious "lunged fish" are still fish!
None of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish.-ken ham

 

[createdtoworship]

What you asked for were transitionals above the species level. Everything I showed you were different genera, and different genera from anything alive today. Dorudon is a genus name. Merychippus is a genus name, etc. The modern horse is Equus. So, the transitional genus between Equus and Pliohippus is Dinohippus. You can call them all "horses" (as in "horse family") but they are not modern horses. Clear now? Anything else you want? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how a whale or horse transitional would not be "whale-like" or "horse-like", respectively. Wouldn't you just then claim it wasn't transitional because it looked nothing like a whale or horse?

it's just another genra of horse. look it up, wikipedia calls it "terrible horse." Certainly you can get more creative than this? with all the transitions (millions of them) you can't find one from land to see or from boneless to backboned fish. All you have shown is whales, hippos and horses ( and maybe a dog). But they are NOT related. Sorry try again.

 

[Split Rock]

whale evolution cracks me up:

this is similiar:

to this???

Wow, I mean wow. Wake up, one is a hippo. One a whale.

They are genetically closely related. Deal with it.

provide the specific name of the animal in question, thanks

Do you want a species name? Equus ferus Now, how does that help you?

simple, it's a lobe-finned "fish" like creature .

Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. Like nearly all bony fishes, these fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gills.

It also has elbows and a neck. A perfect transitional. You tell us what a transitional should look like.
Please do not ignore this request again, because all you are doing is saying every transitional is not because it is too much like what it is transitional to.

Regarding lungs: there are several fish that have the ability to shortly breath air. The mudskipper and various amphibious "lunged fish" are still fish!
None of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish.-ken ham

Ken Ham is an idiot. Extinct lung fish are indeed transitionals. Modern lung fish are obviosuly not! Does this take a rocket scientist to figure that out?

it's just another genra of horse. look it up, wikipedia calls it "terrible horse." Certainly you can get more creative than this? with all the transitions (millions of them) you can't find one from land to see or from boneless to backboned fish. All you have shown is whales, hippos and horses ( and maybe a dog). But they are NOT related. Sorry try again.

Another genera of horse? That is just what you asked for! Genera that are transitional to each other!!

ONE last time: What do you expect a horse transitional to look like, if not a horse?????

 

[createdtoworship]

[They are genetically closely related. Deal with it.

ha ha, cracks me up. You don't even realize it.




Do you want a species name? Equus ferus Now, how does that help you?

because it is classified as a wild horse, do a search on it! Don't tell me they are supposed to be alike because you have already shown otherwise with hippos and hunch backs.

It also has elbows and a neck. A perfect transitional. You tell us what a transitional should look like.
Please do not ignore this request again, because all you are doing is saying every transitional is not because it is too much like what it is transitional to.

point and case, hippos are not whales.

Ken Ham is an idiot.

straw man if I ever seen one.

Extinct lung fish are indeed transitionals. Modern lung fish are obviosuly not! Does this take a rocket scientist to figure that out?

I have heard that one before:

"crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered.

This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!"-ken ham

Another genera of horse? That is just what you asked for! Genera that are transitional to each other!!

ONE last time: What do you expect a horse transitional to look like, if not a horse?????

hippos and whales don't forget! Those are transitions remember, and they don't look ANY thing alike.

 

[Split Rock]

ha ha, cracks me up. You don't even realize it.

I guess it is so obvious that you can't explain why.

Do you want a species name? Equus ferus Now, how does that help you?

because it is classified as a wild horse, do a search on it! Don't tell me they are supposed to be alike because you have already shown otherwise with hippos and hunch backs.

Do you understand or not that the others I mentioned are DIFFERRENT GENERA AND ARE NOT EQUUS???

point and case, hippos are not whales.

Brilliant! I never claimed they were!

straw man if I ever seen one.

another case in point coming up...

I have heard that one before:

"crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered.

So what? There are still ferns and bacteria too. These are different species and even different genera from the extinct ones in the fossil record... not that you seem to know what that means.

This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!"-ken ham

Case in point number two, showing Ken Ham is an idiot. No one claimed coelacanth disapperared because they evolved... it was thought they diappeared because they could no longer be found in the fossil record. Now you tell me how it is possible they weren't found in the fossil record, if the record is not incomplete. Go ahead.

hippos and whales don't forget! Those are transitions remember, and they don't look ANY thing alike.

They are NOT Transitionals! They are related by a common ancestor! I already showed you whale transitionals, and you dimissed them because they were "Whale-like." Now you are claiming two types are not transitional because they don't look alike!

ONE LAST TIME

YOU TELL ME WHAT A WHALE OR HORSE TRANSITIONAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE

 

[NailsII]

straw man if I ever seen one.

No really, Ken Ham is an idiot.

I have heard that one before:

"crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered.

This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!"-ken ham

hippos and whales don't forget! Those are transitions remember, and they don't look ANY thing alike.

Point proved.
I havn't seen any suggestion that ceolacanth's all evolved and moved on - i was under the impression that they were considered to have become extinct - and there is a major difference here!

just to note, there are other organisms which appear to have been wiped out but cling on to existance in one small, remote place - if you are interested i will provide examples.

Another note, hippos didn't evolve into whales, they just share a common ancestor.

 

[createdtoworship]

I havn't seen any suggestion that ceolacanth's all evolved and moved on - i was under the impression that they were considered to have become extinct - and there is a major difference here!

"coelacanths were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River (now Tyolomnqa) in 1938."

-wikipedia

Another note, hippos didn't evolve into whales, they just share a common ancestor.

source for this misinformation?

 

[createdtoworship]

I guess it is so obvious that you can't explain why.

common sense is not taught, it's caught.

YOU TELL ME WHAT A WHALE OR HORSE TRANSITIONAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE

easy, a horse transition if there was one would like 50% like a horse, and 50% like the animal it was transitioning from.

You simply forgot to provide that animal

 

[NailsII]

"coelacanths were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River (now Tyolomnqa) in 1938."

-wikipedia

Funny, i always thought that Acanthostega and Ichthyostega were better candidates - but I didn't learn biology in the 1930's.
I will accept my error, and alter my position on the basis of this new (to me anyway) information.

source for this misinformation?

I pretty sure than anyone who knows a little biology would not think that a hippo has remained unchanged for over 50 million years, but if you want a sauce, I'll give you a source:
Wiki has all the answers

easy, a horse transition if there was one would like 50% like a horse, and 50% like the animal it was transitioning from.

You simply forgot to provide that animal

Why would the animal have to be exactly half and half, unless you were wanting a crocoduck?