No Missing Links?

[RickG]

Deleted, responded to wrong post by accident. Fixed in next post.

 

[RickG]

We've made similar finds that scales can't evolve into feathers
because they're not the same base structures.

Does that mean feathers cannot exist?

 

[SkyWriting]

Please explain to me how you can tell a "missing" link from a never existed link?

Well, taking the evo side, if you see similarities on one side of the
gap, then similarities with changes on the other side,
then you can guess a gap in the record.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does that mean feathers cannot exist?

Sure Rick...........they don't exist. CooCooo Coo Coo

 

[Split Rock]

Neither is an accusation or denigration.....you only think it so because of what your faith preaches.

"There you go again!" - Ronald Reagan

 

[lasthero]

TO ANYONE: Bye! I think I've said enough on this string.

Well, that's true. You've said more than enough. Anyway.

No one answered my Qs, as first seen on p.1 of this string and then oft repeated.

You ignored pretty much everyone on this thread, so you're opinion on what was and wasn't answered is moot

One person claimed they had been answered but a perusal of the posts will show that is not the case. One person said my questions were "addressed" but I didn't ask for them to be addressed. I asked for them to be answered.

Adressing the questions would be answering them.

This weekend I had time for debating evolution

A debate requires two people with opposing viewpoints, and you've ignored pretty much everyone who disagrees with you.

Blessings to you all and that's all I have to say and won't be back.

All right, now, I'm going to hold you to that promise. Don't go changing.

 

[JacksBratt]

Loricalady was here, posted some great questions and left without being answered.

The posters danced around her questions like people around a fire. Never diving in, in case they get burned. Once and a while they would leap over and claim they defeated it without being burned. Yet, in truth, never entered. Some tried and were proven to be inadequately versed in "facts".

This loricalady was obviously very knowledgeable in the fields which she presented. She was a step ahead of anyone I have seen post on these forums.

Yes, I stated that I am not educated in the fields of evolutionary science. Yet, those who are, are still educated by men and women who perpetuate and regurgitate the lies passed on to them. Unless you have been at the digs, studied and worked in the trenches, traveled and seen all these things for yourself..... then you are just a student. Students can only believe what they are told and repeat it when asked. But, if they are taught fiction, they will repeat fiction.

The fossil record is petrified remains of organisms of time gone by. The evolutionist creates his story based on this static snapshot of time and builds a feature length movie from it. If anyone opposes it, they really don't have any solid evidence to support it other than their petrified remains and their single point in time and their fabricated story.

Are they educated guesses, of course. However, the creationist takes this same fossil record of static points of time and create their own story and are called fools because they back it up with their education and with a collection of books that was written over centuries of time and has survived the tests of time, changed more lives for the good and shown the future predicted, predictions to come true, founded the morals and values of all good humans world wide without exception, and kept this earth from becoming a dome of evil and lawlessness for century upon century.


In the end you will believe what you believe. I will believe the Holy Bible and the words of the well educated men and women who are strong bible believers and that stand against the wall of the "educated" "experts" that beat them down for their views that contradict the "accepted" opinion of the masses that accept the farce of evolution as "fact".

 

[lasthero]

Loricalady was here, posted some great questions and left without being answered.

She posted a buch of PRATTs.

The posters danced around her questions like people around a fire.[ Never diving in, in case they get burned.

She ignored pretty much everyone who responded to her, even when they asked her simple questions and weren't the least bit aggressive. It's also important to note this WASN'T HER TOPIC, and she never addressed the OP.

This loricalady was obviously very knowledgeable in the fields which she presented.

No, she was not. She thought ambulocetus had a horn. Anyone's ever seen a fossil of ambulocetus would know that it doesn't.

Yes, I stated that I am not educated in the fields of evolutionary science. Yet, those who are, are still educated by men and women who perpetuate and regurgitate the lies passed on to them. Unless you have been at the digs, studied and worked in the trenches, traveled and seen all these things for yourself..... then you are just a student.

Nonsense. And RickG has this very experience. He's been to those digs and he's been in the field and you don't care what he says, either.

The fossil record is petrified remains of organisms of time gone by.

Yup. And they're in a specific order.

However, the creationist takes this same fossil record of static points of time and create their own story and are called fools because they back it up with their education and with a collection of books that was written over centuries of time and has survived the tests of time, changed more lives for the good and shown the future predicted, predictions to come true, founded the morals and values of all good humans world wide without exception, and kept this earth from becoming a dome of evil and lawlessness for century upon century.

I wasn't aware creationists held a monopoly on the Bible.

In the end you will believe what you believe. I will believe the Holy Bible and the words of the well educated men and women who are strong bible believers and that stand against the wall of the "educated" "experts" that beat them down for their views that contradict the "accepted" opinion of the masses that accept the farce of evolution as "fact".

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hey, have you been stocking up on silver? I hear the werewolves are coming.

 

[Split Rock]

Loricalady was here, posted some great questions and left without being answered.

That is a blatant falsehood. Also, are you a Loricalady groupie, or something??

The posters danced around her questions like people around a fire. Never diving in, in case they get burned. Once and a while they would leap over and claim they defeated it without being burned. Yet, in truth, never entered. Some tried and were proven to be inadequately versed in "facts".

One More Time.

Your Great Hero, Loricalady asserted that there was no geological column. I provided evidence that we have almost the entire column here in North Dakota. She responded by accusing me of bashing her and ignored my post.

Your Great Hero, Loricalady also asserted that the geological column was invented to support Darwinian theory. I replied by explaining (and this is a simple historical fact mind you) that the geological column was established before the theory of evolution was established. This made it impossible for the former to be based on the latter. She ignored that too.

This loricalady was obviously very knowledgeable in the fields which she presented. She was a step ahead of anyone I have seen post on these forums.

She was a little more knowledgeable than the average creationist, but that's not saying much.

Yes, I stated that I am not educated in the fields of evolutionary science. Yet, those who are, are still educated by men and women who perpetuate and regurgitate the lies passed on to them. Unless you have been at the digs, studied and worked in the trenches, traveled and seen all these things for yourself..... then you are just a student. Students can only believe what they are told and repeat it when asked. But, if they are taught fiction, they will repeat fiction.

There is a reason why scientific research is peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature... so that everyone doesn't have to repeat what everyone else does to accept the results.

The fossil record is petrified remains of organisms of time gone by. The evolutionist creates his story based on this static snapshot of time and builds a feature length movie from it. If anyone opposes it, they really don't have any solid evidence to support it other than their petrified remains and their single point in time and their fabricated story.

It is a series of snapshots, that, like an old movie reel, produces a movie when watched all together.Its not perfect, but its not a "fabricated story," either.

Are they educated guesses, of course. However, the creationist takes this same fossil record of static points of time and create their own story and are called fools because they back it up with their education and with a collection of books that was written over centuries of time and has survived the tests of time, changed more lives for the good and shown the future predicted, predictions to come true, founded the morals and values of all good humans world wide without exception, and kept this earth from becoming a dome of evil and lawlessness for century upon century.

Morals have nothing to do with the actual natural history of the earth.

In the end you will believe what you believe. I will believe the Holy Bible and the words of the well educated men and women who are strong bible believers and that stand against the wall of the "educated" "experts" that beat them down for their views that contradict the "accepted" opinion of the masses that accept the farce of evolution as "fact".

And you can also stand in the rain with them as they shout at the storm clouds. Good luck with that.

 

[RickG]

She was a little more knowledgeable than the average creationist, but that's not saying much.

I thought it was a bit interesting how she pushed her idea that because Lylle wasn't a geologist and Darwin was a biologist that they were unqualified, yet asserts herself, with even less credentials, that geologists and biologists today don't know what they are talking about.

 

[selfinflikted]

that's all I have to say and won't be back.

I'm incredulous. But, if true...



Sadly, though, the exchanges between this poster and others certainly gauged high on the entertainment scale.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please explain to me how you can tell a "missing" link from a never existed link?

Please explain the criteria you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. I am questioning the creationist position in this thread. They are they ones who need to explain their contradictory positions.

Please give me a shred of evidence that it ever produced a single descendant significantly different from itself in anyway.

It seems that you have confused two terms. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Those are two different words. Here is the definition for transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

We don't need to know if a fossil has any descendants in order to determine if it is transitional or not.

Pllease don't point me to this and that of a dozen or so other "whale transition" fossils and tell me ambulocetus turned into them. There's no ev-i-dence for that. They don't even look alike.

Based on what criteria? What are the morphological features you are comparing? What are your criteria for the expected homology between a living whale species and a whale transitional?

Oh, but you will cite "similar homology" no doubt, in this case because ambulocetus had some minor similarity in its inner ears to whales. Uh, sorry, that's the use of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy, one of the many logical fallacies evolution is built on, and its favorite one. Science cannot be illogical. That means you can't prop up a theory with logical fallacies and call it evidence.

First you say that these are not transitional because they lack similarity. Now you are saying that even a similar looking fossil can not be considered a transitional. Which is it?

So what do you look at to determine if a fossil is transitional or not? What are the criteria you use?

Doilphns and sharks have similar homology, so do snakes and worms. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales have sonar - gee, that's even more of a similarity than seen in the inner ear structures of ambulocetus and whales. People and cockatoos dance to music. Countless other similarities can be found in life forms that even evolutionist don't try to claim are related. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.

I would love to see the homology that you think these pairs share. I would suspect that you will turn out to be completely wrong, and fail to understand the differences between analogous and homologous.

Now onto Tiktaalik. At least one world famous evolutionary evangelist has proudly called Tik "As good as it gets for a transitional form." I agree with that statement! If you check out some evolution sites you will see Tik being called a "Fishapod" as we are being led to believe it turned into a tetrapod, a 4 legged creature. But....but....it looks practically identical to other lobe finned fish found today.

That looks like a testable claim. Show us a single extant lobe finned fish that has the homologous humerus, radius, and ulna seen in Tiktaalik.

Also notice that you are using similarities again, even though you tried to make them off limits before.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loricalady was here, posted some great questions and left without being answered.

The posters danced around her questions like people around a fire. Never diving in, in case they get burned. Once and a while they would leap over and claim they defeated it without being burned. Yet, in truth, never entered. Some tried and were proven to be inadequately versed in "facts".

This loricalady was obviously very knowledgeable in the fields which she presented. She was a step ahead of anyone I have seen post on these forums.

Yes, I stated that I am not educated in the fields of evolutionary science. Yet, those who are, are still educated by men and women who perpetuate and regurgitate the lies passed on to them. Unless you have been at the digs, studied and worked in the trenches, traveled and seen all these things for yourself..... then you are just a student. Students can only believe what they are told and repeat it when asked. But, if they are taught fiction, they will repeat fiction.

The fossil record is petrified remains of organisms of time gone by. The evolutionist creates his story based on this static snapshot of time and builds a feature length movie from it. If anyone opposes it, they really don't have any solid evidence to support it other than their petrified remains and their single point in time and their fabricated story.

Are they educated guesses, of course. However, the creationist takes this same fossil record of static points of time and create their own story and are called fools because they back it up with their education and with a collection of books that was written over centuries of time and has survived the tests of time, changed more lives for the good and shown the future predicted, predictions to come true, founded the morals and values of all good humans world wide without exception, and kept this earth from becoming a dome of evil and lawlessness for century upon century.


In the end you will believe what you believe. I will believe the Holy Bible and the words of the well educated men and women who are strong bible believers and that stand against the wall of the "educated" "experts" that beat them down for their views that contradict the "accepted" opinion of the masses that accept the farce of evolution as "fact".

You can answer the questions in my last post, if you dare.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, taking the evo side, if you see similarities on one side of the
gap, then similarities with changes on the other side,
then you can guess a gap in the record.

What features would a fossil need in order to fill that gap?

 

[Loudmouth]

Lorica Lady:


Thank you so much for all the facts and questions that you have asked here. You have presented quite a task to the many regulars here.

I am still waiting for a creationist to meet the task outlined in the opening post.

How do you determine if a fossil is transitional or not? At one moment, we are told that a fossil is not similar enough to be a transitional. The next moment we are told that we are not allowed to use similarities for fossils that are similar enough.

Which is it?

What are the criteria you use to determine that fossils are not transitional?

I do believe 100% that the Bible account is true and literal.

What features would a fossil need in order to challenge this claim?

 

[Loudmouth]

My Qs were perfectly valid and like over a hundred before you, you have evaded them and changed the subject. It is perfectly valid to ask if there is any evidence that a hooved animal turned into a great whale.

It is not valid to ask for that evidence, but then turn around and claim that no fossil can be evidence for evolution . . . no matter what.

You have already shown us the problem with the creationist argument. When the evidence starts to stack up for the transitional nature of fossils, you try to make the evidence go away by proclaiming that similarities don't mean anything.

If you aren't using morphological homologies to determine if a fossil is transitional or not, then what are you using?

Yes, life comes from life. Uh, how does that show that a great whale came from ambulocetus, anymore than it would show that a shark led to a dolphin when a shark has far more "similar homology", or similar shape, to a dolphin than ambuloetus has to a whale?

Why don't you back up this claim. Show us how a dolphin and a shark share more features than ambulocetus and modern whales. I would be really interested to see if you could support this oft cited claim.

We could start with the arrangement of bones in the forelimb, if you like. Teeth and lower jaw would also be of interest. The middle ear would be fun to compare. I am guessing that you really don't understand anything about anatomy.

Even if I were an orphan who had no known parents, one could tell they were humans because I am a human! Ambulocetus was not a whale! A whale is not of the ambulocetus kind. Yeal, life comes from life. And what we see is that lifeforms come from very, very, very similar lifeforms.

We are showing you evidence that the ancestors of lifeforms were not very, very, very similar.

As I said, there is no geologic column.

Found one for you.

As I showed in earlier quotes in purple, evolutionary scientists are admitting the so called geologic column and "transititons" are made up with subjectivity to try to stick to Darwinian ideas. Therefore your mention of different "geologic" periods is meaningless, in my opinion.

Then tell us the criteria we should be using to determine if a fossil is transitional nor not. For example, what features should a real transitional fossil have if it is to be transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

There is no ev-i-dence that ambulocetus led to a whale.

Transitional does not mean ancestral.

 

[LoricaLady]

LOUDMOUTH

I did not want to come back to this string as for one thing I just don't have the time right now. However, looking over my subscriptions page I saw you had finally left a 2nd post on this string and it always bothered me that I had not responded to any posts where you, the OP, replied to me, since you had not left any. That didn't seem maybe quite fair.

I certainly do not have time to go through your whole post, but I think the first quote, above, says it all, namely that you need to learn to do critical thinking, and that therefore you not only don't understand what evolution is saying, you really don't understand the fundamentals of scientific analysis.

Your quote (with bold and italics etc. added on for emphasis, and with my own comments in brackets):

It seems that you have confused two terms. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Those are two different words. Here is the definition for transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] [Uh, where do descendants come from, btw? Could it be from the earlier ancestors?].] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. [Anyone, see my quotes, in blue, The So Called Geologic Column, to RickG, page 2, where one evolutionist talks about "the infinity of missing links." What is the evidence for any such missing links? None. The evidence is that the fervently believed in, and hoped for, "infinity" of such things is fiction. But in evolution-think the real evidence - no links - is ignored and invisible fossils are believed in and taught as actual scientific fact.] Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct [Is this the word that tripped you up? "Direct"? In standard English if someone talks about your "direct" ancestors it is implicit, understood, that you have other ancestors that are not direct. Ditto any lifeform.] ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[/B]

------

If you still don't see what I am trying to point out, here is a definition of transitional forms from the evolution department at Berkeley: Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

How can I have a debate, for long, with people who say things like "Whales have fur", that the difference between a fish and a tetrapod, a four legged animal, is "subjective", and then tell me "transitional fossils" (presumed to be transitional, and "infinitely" often invisible) aren't based on ancestry - right before pasting a definition that clearly says that they are based on ancestry? Well, I did put down some information on this string for those who have eyes to see, or those who want to get them, but that's the best I can do. Sigh.

I guess the problems are due largely to our public school system which doesn't really teach critical thinking, but only the regurgitation of "facts", whether real or not. But...you can learn to think clearly and analytically if you put in the effort. This I know from personal experience.

I wish you well, I wish all here well, but now that I feel I've done my duty by responding to the OP's reply to my Qs on p. 1, it seems any more expenditure of time here is not a wise idea because I can't teach people to think. The best I can do, what I have tried to do, is get them to see that they....aren't...really....thinking. They have to learn to do that for themselves, and they have to be willing to learn to do it. I pray that will become the case. I pray that you will stop being deluded into thinking you are nothing more than the modified offspring of Lucy and Ida etc. etc., and stop buying it that your creator is some evidenceless, anti scientific, primal pond. I pray that you will find out who you, and your Creator, really are and that some day I will see you in Heaven. (Right or wrong I feel that Abba is showing me that will be true for at least a couple of you, and that He will become your Abba - Hebrew for Daddy - too. )

Bye!

 

[lasthero]

How can I have a debate, for long, with people who say things like "Whales have fur",

Oh, by the way, didn't respond to this before: they do. Yes, not much of it, and it's quite short, but they do have fur. Or hair. Or whatever you want to call it. It's essentially the same thing.

By the way, it's extremely telling how you ignored the vast amount of what Loudmouth posted, focused on one point, then spent the rest of your time preaching about how we're not thinking. You didn't answer a single one of his questions.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm incredulous. But, if true...



Sadly, though, the exchanges between this poster and others certainly gauged high on the entertainment scale.

Unfortunately, it looks like she broke her promise... LOL

 

[Loudmouth]

LOUDMOUTH

I did not want to come back to this string as for one thing I just don't have the time right now. However, looking over my subscriptions page I saw you had finally left a 2nd post on this string and it always bothered me that I had not responded to any posts where you, the OP, replied to me, since you had not left any. That didn't seem maybe quite fair.

I didn't post over the weekend. Didn't think it would be a big deal.

I certainly do not have time to go through your whole post, but I think the first quote, above, says it all, namely that you need to learn to do critical thinking, and that therefore you not only don't understand what evolution is saying, you really don't understand the fundamentals of scientific analysis.

I most assuredly do understand scientific analysis. In fact, I understand it well enough that I would never make the massive mistakes you have made in this thread. For example, you claimed that the transitional features found in Tiktaalik are also found in coelacanths. That simply isn't true. You also made claims about homologous structures shared by dolphins and sharks that are not share with dolphins and other mammals. That is false as well. You have made misstatement after misstatement in this thread, and I doubt you will even try to back up a single one of them. Am I right?

Your quote (with bold and italics etc. added on for emphasis, and with my own comments in brackets):

It seems that you have confused two terms. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Those are two different words. Here is the definition for transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] [Uh, where do descendants come from, btw? Could it be from the earlier ancestors?].] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. [Anyone, see my quotes, in blue, The So Called Geologic Column, to RickG, page 2, where one evolutionist talks about "the infinity of missing links." What is the evidence for any such missing links? None. The evidence is that the fervently believed in, and hoped for, "infinity" of such things is fiction. But in evolution-think the real evidence - no links - is ignored and invisible fossils are believed in and taught as actual scientific fact.] Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct [Is this the word that tripped you up? "Direct"? In standard English if someone talks about your "direct" ancestors it is implicit, understood, that you have other ancestors that are not direct. Ditto any lifeform.] ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[/B]

------

Ancestral and descendant groups do not indicate that a transitional has to be in the direct lineage of a living species. Ancestral and descendant groups are models used to determine what a transitional fossil should look like. It even says right in the definition I am using that transitional fossils are never assumed to be a direct ancestor/descendant.

If you still don't see what I am trying to point out, here is a definition of transitional forms from the evolution department at Berkeley: Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

Again, these are groups which are scientific models. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Transitional means that a fossil has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. That's it.

How can I have a debate, for long, with people who say things like "Whales have fur", that the difference between a fish and a tetrapod, a four legged animal, is "subjective", and then tell me "transitional fossils" (presumed to be transitional, and "infinitely" often invisible) aren't based on ancestry - right before pasting a definition that clearly says that they are based on ancestry? Well, I did put down some information on this string for those who have eyes to see, or those who want to get them, but that's the best I can do. Sigh.

A fossil with a mixture of features from two other taxa is a transitional by definition, at least in the real world of science.

What criteria do you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

I guess the problems are due largely to our public school system which doesn't really teach critical thinking, but only the regurgitation of "facts", whether real or not. But...you can learn to think clearly and analytically if you put in the effort. This I know from personal experience.

Using your supposed critical thinking skills, please list the criteria you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

I wish you well, I wish all here well, but now that I feel I've done my duty by responding to the OP's reply to my Qs on p. 1, it seems any more expenditure of time here is not a wise idea because I can't teach people to think.

No, you can't teach people to think. People like yourself can only deny the evidence, and never learn from it. You even think that dolphins have more in common with sharks than they do other mammals. I could help cure you of that ignorance, but you would have to be willing to learn. I doubt that you are willing.

If you want to learn how transitional fossils are used to test the theory of evolution, then the first thing you should read up on is cladistics and phylogenetics. These form the basis of how evolution is able to make predictions as to what fossils we should and shouldn't see.