Missing link found?

seebs said:

There are two possibilities, I see here.

One is that this is sarcastic, derisive, and ultimately a totally inappropriate post, and very poor Christian witness, and simultaneously a testimony that you have absolutely no intention of entering into an honest discussion of this issue; that you're simply going to stick with an unsubstantiated claim and insult anyone who disagrees.

The other is that I have no idea at all what you're trying to say.

Click to expand...

Maybe, there's a third? Like you also missed the GAP theory? Only see YEC, and TE?

Nice try, because you gave an answer that requires an assumption on my part for it to be acceptable as being true. I have no such assumption. And, I gave Scriptures that you dared not go near. This is a Christian forum, not a secular one. Your argument is for the secularists who leave God out of the equation. Deal with the passages I presented? That would be a good place to start.

The transitionals have been the thorn in the side of the evolutionists from the start. In past posts, I have provided a very reasonable reason for why there is no need for transitionals, and why different creations appear in the fossil records. If your theory were a correct one, then what you said to me would be assumed to be true. But, too many parts of the puzzle are missing. If I wanted to believe evolution were the answer, I would have to accept your answer by faith.

I would rather accept God's Word by faith. You don't.

Like I said.... nice try. What I really meant, was..... "Thanks for the form letter response." It was a cliche answer.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

genez said:

Maybe, there's a third? Like you also missed the GAP theory? Only see YEC, and TE?

Click to expand...

Gap theory has nothing to do with it.

Nice try, because you gave an answer that requires an assumption on my part for it to be acceptable as being true.

Click to expand...

No, I presented an analogy. Your attack on "transitionals" is a meaningless shifting of goalposts.

And, I gave Scriptures that you dared not go near.

Click to expand...

This is gratuitously insulting. I didn't "dare not" go near them; they are simply irrelevant to the question.

This is a Christian forum, not a secular one. Your argument is for the secularists who leave God out of the equation. Deal with the passages I presented? That would be a good place to start.

Click to expand...

They are entirely irrelevant to the discussion here.

The question under discussion is whether or not there are transitionals, or how many. There are, and there are enough to be consistent with plain old evolution. Whether or not evolution happened doesn't matter; the fossil record is consistent with it. The fossil record is also consistent with the theory that God created the world with a fossil record stretching back millions of years, the same way He could have created trees which already had rings.

We are not trying to decide which theory is which; the only question under discussion is whether or not the fossil record lacks "transitionals", and the answer is that it doesn't.

When you argue that it does, we bring in the milepost analogy, which is directly on point.

The transitionals have been the thorn in the side of the evolutionists from the start.

Click to expand...

No, they have been a large portion of the basis of evolutionary theory.

In past posts, I have provided a very reasonable reason for why there is no need for transitionals, and why different creations appear in the fossil records.

Click to expand...

But I don't care whether or not there is a "need" for transitionals; the world is full of 'em.

If I wanted to believe evolution were the answer, I would have to accept your answer by faith.

Click to expand...

No, my answer to this question is one you can go look at in any natural history museum.

I would rather accept God's Word by faith. You don't.

Click to expand...

This is an insult, a lie, and a continuation of the abysmal witness you've brought to these debates.

I accept the Word on faith. What I don't accept is your personal interpretation. That's because, see, you're not God. You're just some guy. You, likewise, do not accept my interpretation. That's fine.

The difference is, I don't pretend to be speaking for God, or make half-veiled accusations that the people who disagree with me aren't real Christians.

Like I said.... nice try. What I really meant, was..... "Thanks for the form letter response." It was a cliche answer.

Click to expand...

It's not a form letter. I'm trying to discuss an actual topic here, not get sidetracked in a dozen spurious side arguments. The question is what we have for transitionals, and how that lines up with mainstream evolutionary theory. Attempts to sidetrack it are inappropriate.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Click to expand...

If you wish to sign things "grace and peace", perhaps you should show some sign of either.

genez said:

The transitionals should have been better able to survive than what they were leaving behind. Yet, we find plenty of those left behind in fossil form, yet the transitionals?

Click to expand...

The ones left behind are themselves transitionals, between what came before them, and what came after them.

That's the key idea you're missing here. You're trying to divide all life forms into "species" and "transitions between species", and that's not how it works.

There is no absolute scale of "fitness".

A afarensis may have been the pinnacle of fitness for the environment in which he found himself. But that environment changed, and therefore he became less suitable. A series of transitionals results, each species plateauing as a peak of fitness is reached, only to undergo rapid change again as the environment changes. This is punctuated equilibrium.

And this is why evolution does not expect there to be more H habilis than A afarensis.

seebs said:

The ones left behind are themselves transitionals, between what came before them, and what came after them.

That's the key idea you're missing here. You're trying to divide all life forms into "species" and "transitions between species", and that's not how it works.

Click to expand...

The fossil records appear to be showing great leaps between transitionals? But, I know. In your thinking, you are a transitional.

Where will the transitionals come from when the Lion and lamb lay down together and eat grass? The New Heaven and new earth will appear in an instant.

"Class, be seated. Today I will teach you the evolutionary stages that brought the skunk into his glory. You see, the skunk at one time was the most timid and polite creature that had evolved. So timid and polite, in fact, that it refused to pass gas in fear of offending another creature. This gas would build up inside, and in his sleep would slowly release when he was not conscious of this action.

One day a wolf snuck up on one of these polite creatures who had been eating on beans all day. Much to the skunks surprise, when the wolf suddenly snuck up on him and shocked him out of his wits, he lost all control of his bowels and gave off a horrendous stink of all the gasses that had built up. The wolf gagged and ran off. The other skunks that could not produce such gas were killed off by wolves. Only those who were able to produce the worst stink survived. And, class, that is what we have in the skunk today. Those who could not properly break down their food in digestion survived. Later on, somehow, through hocus pocus, the bowel gas function transformed into glands and pockets developed to hold even greater stink. " (and the class took this in with glazed eyes, for the teacher was like a god to them)."

Like I said. What you believe is by faith. I choose the Lord's faith. You choose man's.

"Now, class, today we will teach you how the octopus developed the ability to spray ink as a means to protect itself. But first, let me show you how the chameleon developed its ability to change color. Ok? ?

Teacher, how come if we are all evolving? That over the centuries of change, that all students do not get "A's"?

Male sex organs and female sex organs will be discussed next month. It just happened, you know! That pesky little ovum just knew where to hide and periodically come out to be fertilized. And? Those sperm used to come out of the arm pits of creatures for the first million years. No pregnancies were able to happen. And. lo and behold! One day the dejected sperms moved down to the waste removal area of the body. They were all set to commit suicide and jump. Just in the nick of time they discovered the solution to the problem! Thank Evolution they did! For if they did not! We would not be here today!

Evolution is impossible when you are able see all that was needed to evolve, and to stay alive until it did. Eyes? Ears? Nose? Mouth?

Imagine how many animals suffocated on its food until the epiglottis finally showed up on the scene? How many eyes dried up before eyelids and tear ducts evolved? How many stomachs self destructed before the protective coating appeared on the stomach walls to prevent digesting of itself? Amazing how quick evolution must have been at one point. Instant responses! Evolution must be now tired after all that hard work. For mow it takes millions of years.........

There are those who think. And, those who only think they think.

Grace and wonder ...... GeneZ

genez said:

The fossil records appear to be showing great leaps between transitionals? But, I know. In your thinking, you are a transitional.

Click to expand...

The thing is... The fossil record we've got today has fossils where there were once gaps. We can predict that there ought to be intermediate fossils, and eventually, they tend to turn up. But... At this point, we have enough of them to reasonably claim there was a road trip, and complaining about the "gaps" is like complaining that there's no picture of Milepost 89 in North Dakota.

Where will the transitionals come from when the Lion and lamb lay down together and eat grass? The New Heaven and new earth will appear in an instant.

Click to expand...

Non sequitur. We are talking about what we can observe, right now, in the world around us. That other things could also happen is not relevant to that.

Like I said. What you believe is by faith. I choose the Lord's faith. You choose man's.

Click to expand...

Like I said. This is insulting, derisive, untrue, and an absolute mockery of Christian charity.

What I choose to believe is the world the Lord created. What you choose to believee is your personal interpretation. When you say that what you believe is "the Lord's faith", and that people who disagree with you are rejecting it, you are not exactly being a good witness.

The Lord's faith has nothing at all to do with details of biology. The Lord's faith has to do with our salvation, and on that, I think my beliefs are about as good as anyone's.

The deepest irony, however, is that you're the one clinging desperately to a man-made invention of the early 1900s as though it were part of Christianity.

Teacher, how come if we are all evolving? That over the centuries of change, that all students do not get "A's"?

Click to expand...

All you're doing here is making it clear that you have no understanding of the claims you so gleefully dismiss.

Evolution is impossible when you are able see all that was needed to evolve, and to stay alive until it did. Eyes? Ears? Nose? Mouth?

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I have to say this: This is, frankly, a genuinely stupid objection to evolution. It doesn't even begin to show fragments of making sense.

Imagine how many animals suffocated on its food until the epiglottis finally showed up on the scene? How many eyes dried up before eyelids and tear ducts evolved? How many stomachs self destructed before the protective coating appeared on the stomach walls to prevent digesting of itself? Amazing how quick evolution must have been at one point. Instant responses! Evolution must be now tired after all that hard work. For mow it takes millions of years.........

Click to expand...

The phrase you're looking for is "irreducible complexity", and the web page you should read is the one with the reducibly complex mousetrap.

There are those who think. And, those who only think they think.

Click to expand...

Yes. And, at this point, I must say, you have firmly shown yourself to be in the second category. You are reciting objections to evolution that the average kindergartener could come up with, and the average first grader could understand the rebuttals to. You are ignoring a great number of life forms in the world around us, which you could, if you wanted, look at and see your questions answered. You are misrepresenting evolution, you are doing so after you have been told that you are misrepresenting it, and you are making personal attacks on the character and faith of those who disagree with you.

In short... You are making every creationist stereotype out there stronger, by showing that at least some creationists have no tools but abuse, lies, and red herrings to bring to bear in a discussion.

Please stop. There are people on this board who have found a strong faith rooted in a literal understanding of Genesis, and you are hurting them by pretending to speak for them.

herev said:

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to seebs again."
Sorry Seebs, I tried!
​

Click to expand...

It's ok, herev. I was able to contribute.

gluadys said:

It's ok, herev. I was able to contribute.

Click to expand...

*tag teams*

seebs said:

Please stop. There are people on this board who have found a strong faith rooted in a literal understanding of Genesis, and you are hurting them by pretending to speak for them.

Click to expand...

I am not the one who is pretending, sir. I only speak for those who do not pretend.

Moving on..... GeneZ

and there he goes......

Genez, I expect those creatures survived perfectly well the same way that those species today who lack tear ducts, eyelids, acid-proof stomach linings et al. survive.

Here is a full discussion on this subject that you might find useful, Potluck:

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring.
Well, yes and no. There would never be a species which was simply a "transitional" or an "intermediate". Each species at a given point in time would be a complete species in and of itself. It is not species X, then a series of intermediates, then species Y. This is a common misconception about how evolution works.

For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

Well, no, they don’t. We would definitely have species which showed traits of earlier forms and the beginnings of traits of later forms in the process, but each species along this progression would have every trait be something useful for itself. These forms would be transitional only in the relativistic sense if you picked two spots, one before and one after, you could then say the one in between shows the transition between the two. But no, we would not expect to see a species that we call a Transitional between two real species. In reality EVERY species in the fossil record is a transitional between the earlier forms and the later forms. And, yes, we do have tons of examples of fossils which show the transition between one form and another in a clear progression over time. Lucaspa has a good list of them, I will ask him to put it up.

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. [discussion of Darwin clipped]

This shows a lack of understanding of the transitional issue. This is an example of how YEC’s make a mistake and then build a theory around it. Again, every species that has ever been found in the fossil record is, when viewed in evolutionary terms, a transition. So, they are found all over the world. The YEC’s are looking for something that evolution never says would exist.



The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

And they have been, although they are not really missing links as much as ongoing links in the extended chain. [long quote listing transitional species was placed here].

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered.
Not true, again for the reasons listed above. They set up the strawman and knock it down. Scientists have not been looking for any "missing links" because evolution does not predict their existence. What we have found is numerous species showing transitions into other species. Given the extremely unlikely even that fossils will form, it is amazing that we have found as many as we have.

All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Well, this is a flat out lie. The fossils show no such thing. The fossils show progression over time, and we have the evidence to prove it. I would assume you are talking about some quotes from scientists which have been taken out of context and presented for a proposition other than intended, and actually contrary to the conclusions of the speaker ("quote mining"). Ask any of the scientists who have made statements regarding "suddenness" whether he thinks evolution is correct and he will look at you oddly and wonder what you are talking about.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:


Sudden, in evolutionary terms, yes. This means hundreds of thousands of years. The pace of evolutionary change does indeed speed up as the pressures which cause evolution become greater, that is perfectly in accord with evolutionary theory.

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

True, and what is missing from this mine-quoting is his explanation of why the Creationists are wrong in this regard. As I explained above, YEC’s often do this, it is called "quote mining" and it is taking evolutionist quotes out of context and using them as sound-bites to support their own theories. Yes, some new species seem to arise more quickly than others and in doing so, leave less evidence of their immediate predecessors behind. Then a species which has become fairly well-established in its environmental niche may evolve VERY little over a long period of time, providing a LOT of fossils of this form. Then pressures change due to incoming population groups or weather, etc, and change is forced again, and again this happens in a relatively short period of time (relative to how long the "stabilized" form of the species had been around), etc.

In short, the fossil record is very much what they have expected to find, which is why these two gentlemen, along with the other 99.9% of the scientists in their field are still convinced that the theory is correct.

Again, a better explanation is as follows:



Although gradualism is generally considered the Darwinian view (and seemed to be the dominant view held by his successors), Darwin himself wrote of stasis and relatively rapid change as well as the likelihood of the fossil record tending to amplify the appearance of such.

It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change. [Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428]

"It has been asserted over and over again, by writers who believe in the immutability of species, that geology yields no linking forms. This assertion, as we shall see in the next chapter, is certainly erroneous. As Sir J. Lubbock has remarked, "Every species is a link between other allied forms." If we take a genus having a score of species, recent and extinct, and destroy fourfifths of them, no one doubts that the remainder will stand much more distinct from each other. If the extreme forms in the genus happen to have been thus destroyed, the genus itself will stand more distinct from other allied genera. What geological research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting together nearly all existing and extinct species. But this ought not to be expected; yet this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views. [p. 428]

When we see a species first appearing in the middle of any formation, it would be rash in the extreme to infer that it had not elsewhere previously existed. So again, when we find a species disappearing before the last layers have been deposited, it would be equally rash to suppose that it then became extinct. We forget how small the area of Europe is compared with the rest of the world . . . when we see a species first appearing in any formation, the probability is that it only then first immigrated into that area. (p. 423) ​

". . . varieties are generally at first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and supplant their parent-form until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree. According to this view, the chance of discovering in a formation in any one country all the early stages of transition between any two forms is small, for the successive changes are supposed to have been local or confined to some one spot. (pp. 427-428)

Once species are well-adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment which would assert the selective pressure to change would tend to end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).



These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.

Puncuated Equilibrium.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Genez, I expect those creatures survived perfectly well the same way that those species today who lack tear ducts, eyelids, acid-proof stomach linings et al. survive.

Click to expand...

Name them.

GeneZ