Lucy

[Astrophile]

So Loudmouth, you asserted “Lucy” as transitional and asked if I thought she was. Well that depends on what you mean by that. I do not believe she is (or that it has been proven) transitional between Ape and Human. I believe she may share some characteristics in common with Humans but I see her as just a variety of ancient southern Ape. I do not accept the theory of one type of creature (say from one family) becoming another (as in a different family).

I use to believe this. In fact I was convinced of it. It is my belief now when I just look at what’s there, void of a pre-taught orientation, that fish do not become amphibians, which become reptiles, which become birds, and so on. I accept that as one way of interpreting the evidence but not as an established fact. Just because one thing precedes another in the geo-column does not necessitate one became the other. And that is NOT because I do not understand the theory of Evolution because I do (in fact I believe in evolution, just not the Darwinian variety).

You appear to be overlooking something that ought to be obvious, namely that every living thing has ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.) going back indefinitely far into the past and that we ought to be able to find fossils of these ancestors. If there is no evolution, these ancestral fossils ought to be of the same kind as their modern descendants.

To be specific, we don't find fossil humans (genus Homo) in Lower Pliocene or older rocks, we don't find fossil apes in Eocene or older rocks, we don't find fossil birds in pre-Jurassic rocks or fossil dinosaurs in pre-Triassic rocks, and yet apes must have had Eocene and earlier ancestors, birds must have had pre-Jurassic ancestors, and dinosaurs must have had Paleozoic ancestors. If apes are not descended from animals that were not apes, if birds are not descended from animals that were not birds, etc., where are the fossils of their ancestors? The absence of pre-Jurassic fossil birds, of Paleozoic dinosaurs, etc. seems to me to point inescapably to the conclusion that these animals evolved from animals of a different kind.

This seems to be obvious, and I have pointed it out many times on these forums, but nobody has ever answered the question; why don't we find fossils of the same-kind ancestors of modern animals and plants?

 

[pshun2404]

Do you believe that if evolution did occur that there should have been species with a mixture of human and ape features?

IF it occurred in the way we have been taught to believe then yes (I also was taught to believe this)…and once again I believe in evolution just not the Darwinian view that one type of creature slowly became another type of creature (and I am not using “type” in a creationist sense but in the sense of cross familial morphism as in birds becoming reptiles, etc.).

Nested hierarchies aren't just flukes or assumptions. They are real observations that are objective and falsifiable. This is the problem. You ignore the data.

Sorry, I disagree but I never said they were flukes or assumptions, I said they were one way of explaining the data (not the only way). Many people today see more of a bush of life with many starting species. Perhaps the problem is I actually read it all and do not dismiss some insights and opinions that question the status quo.

Me: My “criteria” is let the data alone speak and shape the theory (causing one to make continuous adjustments to hypotheses) rather than allowing (and I understand this is difficult for many) the hypothesis to interpret the data.

You: No, it isn't. We have already seen that you start with the conclusion that humans could not have evolved from earlier apes, and you refuse to accept any fossils as evidence for that conclusion.

No I accept the fossils as evidence for my conclusions and do not start with any such assumption. I say could be, might be, but maybe not….in my opinion the “maybe not” or “does not necessitate” is equally as likely, so I will not dismiss the possibility. For me the fossils do not necessitate this transitional conclusion.

If apes and humans were separately created there is no reason that humans would fall into a nested hierarchy with other apes. There is no reason that DNA would produce the same phylogeny as physical characteristics. An omnipotent creator could have made almost two identical looking species that only share maybe 35% of their DNA.

a) I never brought up “created” you did.

b) “with other Apes again assumes humans are a form of Ape

c) DNA certainly can produce similarities in creatures, it does so all the time

d) One does not what an omnipotent creator would or would not do and neither is that being discussed in this thread

e) 35% or 95% some of the same gene expressions produce differently in structure and function and sometimes different genes produce similarly

Ignoring data is not "thinking outside the box".

But seeing it in a unique way IS…only accepting one explanation and ignoring sound reasoning which questions it is “stacking the deck” (a technique used to shape public opinion)

Me:Since I do not believe the evidence necessitates fish becoming amphibian, amphibian reptile, reptile bird, etc., the concept does not apply the same as YOU would define it.

You: In other words, you ignore the fossil data.

Again, I do not. The evidence does not necessitate this explanation (not prove beyond a reasonable doubt….take archaeopteryx….we now have Avian fossils from 75,000 years before it…so be your logic this creature must have evolved FROM birds)

ME: I do not refuse to consider common ancestry, there just is no evidence it is a fact.

You: Why aren't transitional fossils evidence?

Evidence of speciation does not necessitate cross familial or cross phyletic morphism (one creature becoming another…only variety)

ME: I also DO NOT believe we are Apes. It is a theory, a way of interpreting the data that has led to many fine and valuable discoveries that may or may not have been made and seen in different ways.

You: How is that interpretation wrong? It isn't enough to call something an interpretation. You also need to show that the interpretation is wrong.

Go back and re-read. I did not say it was “wrong” I said it is one way of “interpreting the data that has led to many fine and valuable discoveries that may or may not have been made and seen in different ways.”

Both Apes and Humans are primates (this has to do with structure and features unique to each). Guppies and sharks are both fish, but guppies are not sharks nor did one have to come from the other. Also, I see no fossils evidence that man ever lived in trees or knuckle walked as a normative state (there is one modern group who do this some of the time).

You could see the moon as a big chunk of green cheese. Reality could care less. What matters is what you can evidence. Have any evidence?

Where on earth did you dig up that absurd statement? It is apparent that some people think as Darwin that we share a common ancestor and others think some lines of ape became humans…I speak with them all the time and have found some of either group right here on this forum.

The other comments do not merit an answer since they just repeat the same accusations.

 

[pshun2404]

You appear to be overlooking something that ought to be obvious, namely that every living thing has ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.) going back indefinitely far into the past and that we ought to be able to find fossils of these ancestors. If there is no evolution, these ancestral fossils ought to be of the same kind as their modern descendants.

To be specific, we don't find fossil humans (genus Homo) in Lower Pliocene or older rocks, we don't find fossil apes in Eocene or older rocks, we don't find fossil birds in pre-Jurassic rocks or fossil dinosaurs in pre-Triassic rocks, and yet apes must have had Eocene and earlier ancestors, birds must have had pre-Jurassic ancestors, and dinosaurs must have had Paleozoic ancestors. If apes are not descended from animals that were not apes, if birds are not descended from animals that were not birds, etc., where are the fossils of their ancestors? The absence of pre-Jurassic fossil birds, of Paleozoic dinosaurs, etc. seems to me to point inescapably to the conclusion that these animals evolved from animals of a different kind.

This seems to be obvious, and I have pointed it out many times on these forums, but nobody has ever answered the question; why don't we find fossils of the same-kind ancestors of modern animals and plants?

I do not ignore ancestors...thats absurd....I do not believe the evidence demonstrates they were once ape...and that apes like Lucy eventually evolved into humans. As for "if apes are not descended from animals that were not apes, if birds are not descended from animals that were not birds, etc., where are the fossils of their ancestors?" Why does there have to be? Many creatures appear all at once fully formed and many have undergone very little speciation over millions of years (take triops cancerformos for example or crocodiles)...

Now can we get back to Lucy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you believe that if evolution did occur that there should have been species with a mixture of human and ape features?

IF it occurred in the way we have been taught to believe then yes (I also was taught to believe this)…and once again I believe in evolution just not the Darwinian view that one type of creature slowly became another type of creature (and I am not using “type” in a creationist sense but in the sense of cross familial morphism as in birds becoming reptiles, etc.).

There is no other type of evolution other than change over many generations. Even punctuated equilibrium has species changing over several millennia.

If the fossils match what we would expect to see if a theory is true, why isn't that evidence for that theory? That is what you never seem to explain.

Sorry, I disagree but I never said they were flukes or assumptions, I said they were one way of explaining the data (not the only way). Many people today see more of a bush of life with many starting species. Perhaps the problem is I actually read it all and do not dismiss some insights and opinions that question the status quo.

A bush is still a nested hierarchy.

What are these insights that you speak of?

Me: My “criteria” is let the data alone speak and shape the theory (causing one to make continuous adjustments to hypotheses) rather than allowing (and I understand this is difficult for many) the hypothesis to interpret the data.

You: No, it isn't. We have already seen that you start with the conclusion that humans could not have evolved from earlier apes, and you refuse to accept any fossils as evidence for that conclusion.

No I accept the fossils as evidence for my conclusions and do not start with any such assumption. I say could be, might be, but maybe not….in my opinion the “maybe not” or “does not necessitate” is equally as likely, so I will not dismiss the possibility. For me the fossils do not necessitate this transitional conclusion.

Why aren't they evidence for the theory of evolution? They are exactly what we would expect to see if the theory is true.

If apes and humans were separately created there is no reason that humans would fall into a nested hierarchy with other apes. There is no reason that DNA would produce the same phylogeny as physical characteristics. An omnipotent creator could have made almost two identical looking species that only share maybe 35% of their DNA.

a) I never brought up “created” you did.

Then how did they come about?

b) “with other Apes again assumes humans are a form of Ape

No assumption needed. Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do other apes. If chimps are an ape, then so are we. Our DNA puts us in the group.

c) DNA certainly can produce similarities in creatures, it does so all the time

But it doesn't have to. Google Chrome on PC and Mac have very different software code below them, but they look exactly the same on the outside. The same for organisms. You could greatly change the DNA sequence in a genome and still produce a similar looking organism. There is absolutely no reason other than evolution and common ancestry that DNA phylogenies and morphological phylogenies should correlate with each other.

d) One does not what an omnipotent creator would or would not do and neither is that being discussed in this thread

Would an omnipotent designer be limited to a nested hierarchy?

Or are you saying that an omnipotent designer would purposefully make life look like it evolved just to fool us?

But seeing it in a unique way IS…only accepting one explanation and ignoring sound reasoning which questions it is “stacking the deyck” (a technique used to shape public opinion)

What unique way?

The evidence does not necessitate this explanation (not prove beyond a reasonable doubt….take archaeopteryx….we now have Avian fossils from 75,000 years before it…so be your logic this creature must have evolved FROM birds)

In other words, you will never budge from your current position because of the fossil evidence.

Evidence of speciation does not necessitate cross familial or cross phyletic morphism (one creature becoming another…only variety)

Theory predicts A. Theory states that you should never see B.

We always see A, and never see B.

Why isn't that evidence for that theory?

Go back and re-read. I did not say it was “wrong” I said it is one way of “interpreting the data that has led to many fine and valuable discoveries that may or may not have been made and seen in different ways.”

Both Apes and Humans are primates (this has to do with structure and features unique to each). Guppies and sharks are both fish, but guppies are not sharks nor did one have to come from the other. Also, I see no fossils evidence that man ever lived in trees or knuckle walked as a normative state (there is one modern group who do this some of the time).

Why isn't Lucy that very fossil evidence that you are looking for?

Where on earth did you dig up that absurd statement?

I am trying to show how absurd your statements are.

You think that saying "I see Fossil A as such and such" is equivalent to honest fossil interpretation. Bare assertions and unfalsifiable beliefs are not interpretation.

 

[Astrophile]

Many creatures appear all at once fully formed

But where did they appear from? They must have had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. They can't have come from nothing or originated by spontaneous generation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have yet to meet anyone who claims that fossils appear suddenly or fully formed to tell us how they determined that.

 

[pshun2404]

But where did they appear from? They must have had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. They can't have come from nothing or originated by spontaneous generation.

Explore Nautilus....and you tell me

 

[pshun2404]

I have yet to meet anyone who claims that fossils appear suddenly or fully formed to tell us how they determined that.

The late Steven J. Gould, an avid Darwinian activist for decades, sometime before he passed, eventually rejected the neo-Darwinian model for the Punctuated Equilibrium theory, because in the geological layers. In “Natural History“ (I believe the May 1977 issue, could be 1987) Gould admitted that, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of Paleontology”! Now note he does not say they are totally non-existent just extremely rare (as opposed to what I was led to believe in my so-called education). However, he goes on to state as a matter of fact that, “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.“

He also said "In one of the most crucial and enigmatic episodes in the history of life, . . . nearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time..."

Also Dr. Henry Morris in, The Appearance of Bacterium n the Fossil Record, states that “No pre- or semi evolved bacteria exist in the Fossil record. All bacteria appear fully formed. The thought of bacterium with unevolved flagellum, or vice’versa, is a scientific absurdity “.

Eugene Koonin in “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21, tells us “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

Dr. Jeffery H Schwartz in Sudden Origins agrees when he says "“We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”

In Tom Kemps “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583, he states, “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.”

Now all of these men believe in evolution but when Charles Darwin said “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. He was incorrect. Sorry Charlie, there it is! ! Consider it broken down. There are complex organs and organisms for which it cannot be shown that they developed by a series of slow, successive, slight, modifications.

Say whatever you will about me but this is a growing opinion and it is based on the actual evidence without presupposition. Jus'the facts...no story. See my next post and give me your opinion...

 

[pshun2404]

MAGALIESBURG, South Africa (Associated Press, today) — Scientists say they've discovered a new member of the human family tree, revealed by a huge trove of bones in a barely accessible, pitch-dark chamber of a cave in South Africa.

The site has yielded some 1,550 specimens since its discovery in 2013. The fossils represent at least 15 individuals. (a mixture of human like and ape like bones)

Researchers named the creature Homo naledi (nah-LEH-dee).


View gallery




Berger said researchers are not claiming that neledi was a direct ancestor of modern-day people, and experts unconnected to the project said they believed it was not.


View gallery



Here is the problem….they find over 1500 mixed bones….they take from this mix and construct what they believe these creatures would look like (making up a Lucy like skeleton) when in truth this could be a composite from as many as 10 or 15 individuals (some maybe human) and they even are calling it an individual (as if it is an actual representation of a creature) and give it a name, and even have already contrived an artistically created image (for imprinting in presentations and texts IN MY OPINION….a technique often used in the practice of propaganda campaigns)….Is this real? Is this in any way actually what one of these creatures (if it is even unique) looked like? No! There is absolutely no way of knowing. Some are suggesting this narrow tunnel into a deep cave was a dumping site…who knows? This site may evn have been the trash receptacle for dinner remains….so an early human ancestor???? ABSURDTY AD INFINITUM

 

[Loudmouth]

The late Steven J. Gould, an avid Darwinian activist for decades, sometime before he passed, eventually rejected the neo-Darwinian model for the Punctuated Equilibrium theory,

Punctuated Equilibrium is entirely neo-Darwinian. It uses random mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation which are all hallmarks of neo-Darwinian evolution.

because in the geological layers. In “Natural History“ (I believe the May 1977 issue, could be 1987) Gould admitted that, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of Paleontology”! Now note he does not say they are totally non-existent just extremely rare (as opposed to what I was led to believe in my so-called education). However, he goes on to state as a matter of fact that, “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.“

So what makes a fossil fully formed, according to Gould?

He also said "In one of the most crucial and enigmatic episodes in the history of life, . . . nearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time..."

And why shouldn't they?

Also Dr. Henry Morris in, The Appearance of Bacterium n the Fossil Record, states that “No pre- or semi evolved bacteria exist in the Fossil record. All bacteria appear fully formed. The thought of bacterium with unevolved flagellum, or vice’versa, is a scientific absurdity “.

How did you determine that no bacterial ancestors exist in the fossil record? Has anyone searched the entire thing?

Eugene Koonin in “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21, tells us “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

What makes it sudden, according to Koonin? How does he determine if a species suddenly appears?

Dr. Jeffery H Schwartz in Sudden Origins agrees when he says "“We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”

Perhaps you should actually read what Darwin wrote.

"We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

In Tom Kemps “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583, he states, “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.”

How did Kemps determine that there are not any transitionals in the fossil record? Did he search the entire thing?

Now all of these men believe in evolution but when Charles Darwin said “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. He was incorrect. Sorry Charlie, there it is! ! Consider it broken down. There are complex organs and organisms for which it cannot be shown that they developed by a series of slow, successive, slight, modifications.

What complex organ can not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?

 

[pshun2404]

Punctuated Equilibrium is entirely neo-Darwinian. It uses random mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation which are all hallmarks of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Still evolution (no doubt) but not by slight gradual changes over time…rather sudden bursts and sudden extinctions,, similar to what we were hearing from some catastrophe theorists and even some Old World Creationists.

Perhaps you should actually read what Darwin wrote…

First off I have and it is apparent he had to make up some story to explain away how the record negated his theory.

What makes it sudden, according to Koonin? How does he determine if a species suddenly appears?

First there are no indicators of it being there, then BANG, suddenly it is there…it is called an observation that can be demonstrated (a key scientific necessity regarding data void of the attached storyline)

How did Kemps determine that there are not any transitionals in the fossil record? Did he search the entire thing?

As much as any other…

What complex organ cannot have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?

Well for one example (there are many), the organ of valenciennes within the Nautilus…when nautilus suddenly appears, there it is, fully formed, with ZERO pre or semi examples being extant. Zero numerous. Zero successive and slight modifications. Just the actual minus the story. Again, the demonstrable observable reality trumps the assumption based or hypothesis based explanation. Why fight against the truth, and then claim “established fact” where there is none?

 

[Loudmouth]

Still evolution (no doubt) but not by slight gradual changes over time…rather sudden bursts and sudden extinctions,, similar to what we were hearing from some catastrophe theorists and even some Old World Creationists.

Punctuated equilibrium has slight gradual changes over shorter time periods in smaller populations with speciation being one of the major mechanisms. This is contrasted to phyletic gradualism which have the same slight changes happening over longer time periods without many speciation events.

The changes are exactly the same as those in phyletic gradualism. The difference is that with punctuated equilibria the populations are smaller so the mutations spread quicker, and with many rapid speciation events this also helps fix mutations faster.

First off I have and it is apparent he had to make up some story to explain away how the record negated his theory.

He hardly made it up. Darwin went to great lengths to point to geologic examples that supported his argument. Not only that, Darwin turned out to be right.

First there are no indicators of it being there, then BANG, suddenly it is there…it is called an observation that can be demonstrated (a key scientific necessity regarding data void of the attached storyline)

How do you determine that there are no indicators of it being there? Did you search the entire fossil record? What percentage of the fossil record do you think we have searched?

What happens when we do find transitional fossils earlier in the fossil record? Do these fossils no longer "suddenly appear"?

How did Kemps determine that there are not any transitionals in the fossil record? Did he search the entire thing?

As much as any other…

Then that would be a no.

What complex organ cannot have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?

Well for one example (there are many), the organ of valenciennes within the Nautilus…when nautilus suddenly appears, there it is, fully formed, with ZERO pre or semi examples being extant.

Once again, we seem to run into the same problem. We haven't even searched 0.0001% of the fossil record. As Darwin pointed out, the geologic record itself is incomplete. You might as well dig in a cemetery, find a human skeleton, and pronounce that humans suddenly appeared 10 years ago.

Also, you can't show which steps evolution can not bridge.

 

[pshun2404]

can't prove negatives thats true...nice diversions though. So we are done discussing Lucy?

 

[Loudmouth]

can't prove negatives thats true...nice diversions though. So we are done discussing Lucy?

I am still waiting for you or anyone else who rejects the transitional status of Lucy to explain what features a fossil would need in order to evidence evolution.

From what I can see, your position is that no fossil could ever evidence evolution, no matter what features it had. If that is your position, then there isn't really anything to talk about.

I also find it interesting that you would claim that a fossil "suddenly appears as fully formed" using the criteria that there are no ancestors for that fossil earlier in the fossil record. At the same time, you hold the position that no fossil could ever be an ancestor no matter what they look like. Seems like an unfair proposition to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

tribles

 

[Loudmouth]

tribbles

 

[Loudmouth]

tribbles

 

[Loudmouth]

tribles

 

[pshun2404]

I also find it interesting that you would claim that a fossil "suddenly appears as fully formed" using the criteria that there are no ancestors for that fossil earlier in the fossil record. At the same time, you hold the position that no fossil could ever be an ancestor no matter what they look like.

WHy always say I said what I have not said? Is this a technique you use? I did not say a fossil (as in all fossils), or a single example (as there are many, not all), appeared all at once fully formed, I listed three or four evolutionists who made this observation so even if you have a denial based argument, it is with them not me...

And I definitely believe (for one example) that Grey wolf (a Canine) is an ancestor (not the only one I am sure) of many modern canines (not all)...I believe early species that are variations of ancient Sapien (like Boxgrove man minus the Ethiopian head, or Neanderthal or Denisovans) are ancestors of modern Sapiens...so I believe in ancestors (at least the second time I made this point)...and in this sense there certainly has been transitions over time...but monkey to man? reptile to bird? No....just one explanation that in my opinion is not well founded.

"The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal. .. There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified.” (Eugene v. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2:21 (August 20, 2007).)

I am not making the claim, I am basing an opinion on the conclusions of non-creationist scientists....argue with them if you disagree...just realize there is more than one opinion that is possibly true.

 

[Astrophile]

The late Steven J. Gould

I own several of Stephen Jay Gould's books. The fact that you can't even spell his name correctly doesn't inspire me with confidence in your familiarity with his work.

Also Dr. Henry Morris in, The Appearance of Bacterium n the Fossil Record, states that “No pre- or semi evolved bacteria exist in the Fossil record. All bacteria appear fully formed. The thought of bacterium with unevolved flagellum, or vice’versa, is a scientific absurdity “.

Is this the Dr. Henry Morris who wrote The Genesis Flood, The Twilight of Evolution, and Scientific Creationism?

Dr. Jeffery H Schwartz in Sudden Origins agrees when he says "“We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”

The Editorial Reviews of the book on Amazon.com give a more balanced picture of Schwartz's views.
'He claims that the tide is turning in favor of "punctuated equilibrium" - the theory that species typically remain static for great lengths of time and then experience brief spurts of accelerated change - thanks in no small part to the discovery of homeobox genes.'
'Schwartz argues that regulatory genes called homeobox genes .... control developmental processes in such a way that small alterations to their structure can lead to major shifts in organisms, possibly even creating new species.'

Schwartz does not appear to claim that living things come into existence out of nothing or that modern animals and plants are not direct descendants of the extinct forms that palaeontologists find as fossils.

In Tom Kemps “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583, he states, “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.

This was published more than thirty years ago, in a popular science magazine. Why are you quoting such old stuff when there must be more modern work published in the peer-reviewed literature?

 

[DaisyDay]

And I definitely believe (for one example) that Grey wolf (a Canine) is an ancestor (not the only one I am sure) of many modern canines (not all)

Grey wolves are modern. By "canine" do you mean "dog"? All dogs have a common ancestor.

 

[Vaccine]

Lucy is no longer considered the missing link.

http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci...archers-Lucy-is-not-direct-ancestor-of-humans

 

[pshun2404]

Grey wolves are modern. By "canine" do you mean "dog"? All dogs have a common ancestor.

Possibly more then one...and yes the grey wolf or gray wolf are still around...kind of like New Guinea man...Triops....Croc's and other creatures that are also prehistoric, so what does that tell us???? Each shows a few genetic variations with their more ancient members but essentially still the same creature (speciation produced variation not a new genus or family)

The origin of Canis lupus familiaris is not KNOWN only assumed...scientists admit this source ancestor is not clear, some say it is not there at all....no dogs then BANG, dogs! But I used this only as an example of a greater more important point so I hope we do not divert into 20 posts about dog origins (for which there is more than one hypothesis...and that's all they are).

 

[pshun2404]

Why are you quoting such old stuff when there must be more modern work published in the peer-reviewed literature?

Please note that EBs do this all the time is support of their positions. But only, when one does it who disagrees with the status quo insisted upon by the pedagoguery, suddenly the hard work and opinions of others MUST BE dismissed or re-explained though the rose colored glasses of the modern consensus view (which historically in science has proved to ever be replaced, modified, or expressed differently even if that means re-defining previously commonly accepted terms)

This is a technique called "shrinking the box" where by placing particular parameters into the argument one can slowly but surely (if the other falls for it) position the discussion so that the only opinions accepted are of those who support only the perpetrators view....

So first only scientists with a specific view are allowable, then only "modern" ones (whatever that means to them...some 20 years, to others only within 10 is okay, others only right now within a year of two)...and who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course!

Then you can only appeal to articles written in peer reviewed journals, and then only in peer reviewed journals they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who shrinks the box.

Far too many issues and problems are being revealed (by science organizations and other scientists) regarding the so-called "peer reviewed journals" for every item caught or removed as a retraction (many for fraud, fudging the data, dismissing contrary evidence, etc) four of five slip through and remain in the respected list thus influencing the conclusions of others. And before you say it I know we are talking a small number among 1,000s...but still not good...

So no! I am not going to play that game because it is based in prejudice, and does not allow freedom of thought, honest doubt and questions, nor alternative possibilities when it comes to explaining the evidence. In effect it closes the mind, which in my OPINION is against intellectual integrity.

Paul