Science vs. Evolution

[Split Rock]

How about the simple fact not a single transitional fossil or intermediate link has ever been found?

1. Meet Archaeopteryx!
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Meet the Fishapods! Part fish, part tretrapod. Tiktaalik is now the most famous, but there are at least 14 described genera from the Devonian shown here:
Devonian Times - Front Page

3. Meet the Cynodonts! Part reptile, part mammal. Often called "Mammal-like reptiles."
Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals

4. Meet the 4 legged whales from the Eocene! Basilosaurus, Dorudon and Rodhocetus are fine examples:
Philip D. Gingerich

5.Meet the Horse family! Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

Please don't just give me a tired old quote mine in response.

You are quoting a modern dating method applied to the pottery. These objects were not found with those dates on them.

Did you expect that they would be found with "those dates" on them? You claimed that there were no archeological finds older than a few thousand years. I just showed you that you were wrong.

You are turning out to be an Excellent Creationist. Creation Ministries have taught you well. Even the lurkers are taking notice of you.... Keep up the good work!

 

[Cassiterides]

1. Meet Archaeopteryx!
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has been an exposed fraud, or is rejected to be a transitional. Might i add also by evolutionists.

Archaeopteryx - Conservapedia
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Was Archaeopteryx?

2. Meet the Fishapods! Part fish, part tretrapod. Tiktaalik is now the most famous, but there are at least 14 described genera from the Devonian shown here:
Devonian Times - Front Page

Not a transitional, just a fish.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Tiktaalik
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish
Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
Tiktaalik roseae--a fishy 'missing link'

3. Meet the Cynodonts! Part reptile, part mammal. Often called "Mammal-like reptiles."
Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals

Not a transitional.

Chapter 6 - In the Minds of Men, Fifth Edition

If i get time i will look at the others, but so far all you have done is give me a list of alleged transitional fossils which don't actually exist, and have been debunked countless times by creationists. Look at the links i gave you.

Did you expect that they would be found with "those dates" on them? You claimed that there were no archeological finds older than a few thousand years. I just showed you that you were wrong.

Tell me how those pieces of pottery were dated to be 30,000 years old?

Then prove those tests were 100% accurate, with no based assumptions. Good luck.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This has been an exposed fraud, or is rejected to be a transitional. Might i add also by evolutionists.

Archaeopteryx - Conservapedia
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Was Archaeopteryx?

Archaepteyx has not been shown to be fraud. Hoyle has been shown to be mistaken in his claim.

The evidence claimed by Watkins et al. to indicate that the feather impressions are a forgery appear to be easily explainable by natural processes. Detailed study of the London specimen both across the surface and in vertical section have failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that a layer of cement is present. The method claimed to have been used to produce the forgery cannot explain the presence of fine lines crisscrossing the fossil, or the matching dendrites on the slab and counterslab, which occur on top of the feather imprints. The feather imprints on the Maxberg specimen, despite claims to the contrary, are clearly identifiable as such. In this case, forgery of the type envisaged by Watkins et al. can be discounted because of the fact that the impressions run underneath the bony elements of the skeleton.
Something that should be obvious to anyone is that

"any conclusions about the authenticity of the fossil should be based on the best possible evidence. Photographs are just one ingredient of such evidence" (Parmenter & Greenaway 1985, p. 458).
​

Watkins et al., however, cite as evidence of their claims a set of "rudimentary," "poor" photographs having "too much contrast and too soft a focus," without looking at the much more extensive and better quality Museum photographs.
The claims that the feathers of Archaeopteryx are fake has been shown to be unsupported. Thus the claim that "the significance of Archaeopteryx lies in the fact that it represents the only unquestionable case of a fossil showing a transition between two vertebrate classes, aves (birds) and reptilia (reptiles)" has been upheld. In other words, Watkins et al. claim that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form, but cannot be accepted as such because it is a forgery. Since the claim of forgery has not been substantiated, Archaeopteryx must therefore be an example of a transitional form by Watkins, et al.'s own admission (notwithstanding the fact that they mischaracterise Archaeopteryx as the "only" case).

On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery


Here's a little more on the subject

You will notice that these two errors are mutually contradictory: Archaeopteryx cannot both have the skeleton of a modern bird and of Compsognathus, a dinosaur. Occasionally one has the pleasure of seeing the same creationist use both arguments consecutively, as in the following from Dr Jolly F. Griggs' endearingly ridiculous tract Evolution 101:
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wick-Ramasinghe have made a strong case for fossil forgery in their book Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird. This reviewer of the book was convinced. Taking the fossil at face value, the fossil was a complete bird, not half reptile and half bird.
How, you ask yourself, can a man convinced by Hoyle that Archaeopteryx is really Compsognathus also deny that it has reptilian features? That, my friends, is the magic of creationism.

Meanwhile, Creationists still can't decide whether to pretend that Archaeopteryx is identical to an extinct reptile or a modern bird. Perhaps they should toss a coin.

Archaeopteryx - SkepticWiki

I have seen the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx at the Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin. They also have casts of all the other known fossils and of Archaeopteryx and a Compsognathus fossil for comparison. It is a really interesting exhibit.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This has been an exposed fraud, or is rejected to be a transitional. Might i add also by evolutionists.

Archaeopteryx - Conservapedia
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Was Archaeopteryx?

So where are the evolutionists? You've quoted Conservapedia and a Creationist site.

BTW, that wouldn't happen to be the same Conservapedia that's in the process of re-writing the Bible to support heir own politics, is it?

Ah -- yes, it is.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Not a transitional, just a fish.

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish - Answers in Genesis
Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
Tiktaalik roseae--a fishy 'missing link'

The Lancelet: AiG tries to respond to Tiktaalik

Here is some analysis of AiG claims I added some emphasis

It's sort of amusing and sad, all at the same time. This is no surprise, as the response is co-authored by Dr. David Menton, a captial clown. He and co-author Mark Looy have produced a terrible mess: all their basic facts are wrong, dead-wrong. There is the clear impression that they have not even looked at the original reports (a point further evidenced by the fact that they cite only one of the two back-to-back articles published in the same issue).


The interesting thing about all this is that the Menton and Looy are simply pointing out that Tiktaalik has attributes of a fish, but doing nothing to dispute the observed similarities with tetrapods. Has it ever dawned on them that an animal somewhere between fishes and tetrapods might actually have some attributes of a fish?

If you read the entire page you will see just how bad the AiG analysis is and Sarfati's is no better.

 

[Split Rock]

This has been an exposed fraud, or is rejected to be a transitional. Might i add also by evolutionists.

Wrong again. In fact, there are multiple specimens of Archie.

Not a transitional, just a fish.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Tiktaalik
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish
Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
Tiktaalik roseae--a fishy 'missing link'

A fish with legs and a neck??
And you are really referencing Conservapedia?? Don't make me laugh.

Not a transitional.

That's it?

If i get time i will look at the others, but so far all you have done is give me a list of alleged transitional fossils which don't actually exist, and have been debunked countless times by creationists. Look at the links i gave you.

Don't exist??? What does that mean? I think you should close your eyes really tight and repeat, "I don't see them... I don't see them," over and over until you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Then tell us more about "Honest Debate."

The links you gave me are trash.You won't actually look at real ones (other than to maybe glance them over before going over to AIG), why should I look at Creation Ministry propaganda? I've seen plenty of it already.

Tell me how those pieces of pottery were dated to be 30,000 years old?

Then prove those tests were 100% accurate, with no based assumptions. Good luck.

The only thing that is 100% accurate is your interpretation of scripture... correct?

Cassiterides, you are just wasting my time and everyone else's here. You are not interested in any "Honest Debate," despite your claims to the contrary (I guess we all know what that makes you). If all you are going to do is repeat "no it isn't," demand "100% accuracy" and cite creationist propaganda, I am not interested in wasting anymore time with you. You are a closed mine. I feel bad for you. Have a nice life, and I hope one day you will allow your eyes to be opened to reality.

 

[tanzanos]

Common, you seem so sure evolution is a fact, with stacks of evidence but can't provide a single piece of observational evidence for it. Odd indeed.

I challenge you to show me observational evidence that:

You are your father's biological child (DNA test is not acceptable since you have dismissed this method that is used in biology hence evolution).

You are related to your Great Grandfather.


I demand OBSERVATIONAL proof. If you cannot furnish us with the above then I am sorry but you cannot exist and are a figment of imagination.

Do not cheat by using scientific methods like the ones used to prove evolution.

 

[interested in life]

I challenge you to show me observational evidence that:

You are your father's biological child (DNA test is not acceptable since you have dismissed this method that is used in biology hence evolution).

Forgive me for stating the obvious but i guess her mother might say something?

You are related to your Great Grandfather.

Direct observation of might be a tad difficult,however we can directly observe that humans tend to beget humans.

I demand OBSERVATIONAL proof. If you cannot furnish us with the above then I am sorry but you cannot exist and are a figment of imagination.

Or you are going a bit silly in an attempt to validate your point?

Do not cheat by using scientific methods like the ones used to prove evolution.

Equivocation.Its obvious humans beget humans.I get a bit lost trying to tie that in with monkey like creatures producing mutated super primates aka us.Thats a huge leap of faith.I obviously need to study more evolutionary textbooks so i can imagine these super monkeys and their super intelligence.

 

[plindboe]

Forgive me for stating the obvious but i guess her mother might say something?

Direct observation of might be a tad difficult,however we can directly observe that humans tend to beget humans.

Or you are going a bit silly in an attempt to validate your point?

We use inference in the above cases. No one was there to directly observe his father's sperm cell fuse with his mother's egg cell, not even the mother. We can use indirect evidence though, like a paternity test and thereby establish with a high degree of certainty whether he is the father.

Demanding direct observation is silly and would kill off 99% of modern science.

Equivocation.Its obvious humans beget humans.I get a bit lost trying to tie that in with monkey like creatures producing mutated super primates aka us.Thats a huge leap of faith.I obviously need to study more evolutionary textbooks so i can imagine these super monkeys and their super intelligence.

Easy to mock an idea you don't understand. I do agree though that it would help if you read more on the subject. In any case, here's somethng to chew on:

Peter

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The OP seems to misunderstand how Science operates. Scientific explanations for phenomena are theories that have been supported by evidence. They are still called 'theories' because we recognise that further investigation can elaborate on and improve our current understanding of that phenomena, or otherwise, if contradiction occurs, lead to revisions in the theory.
Turning then to evolution, we notice that this phenomena cannot observed by reference to the written record of human history. But we can infer the presence of evolution in other kinds of records that pre-date our own human records. In particular, observations in the fossil record, comparative biochemistry and anatomy, all testify to evolution and provide solid support for theory that life, however it came about, evolves.
Creationists like to twist the word 'observation' to mean something along the lines of: 'You can't observe evolution directly. Therefore, it never happened.' But then again, there are many things that we cannot observe directly that we still hold true: like atoms and even gravity (I say gravity because we can only observe the effects of gravity directly, but not gravity itself). Science doesn't just rely on direct observation of a phenomenon. It uses inference also. There are many things that we cannot observe directly, but that we can infer from the given data.

 

[interested in life]

We use inference in the above cases. No one was there to directly observe his father's sperm cell fuse with his mother's egg cell, not even the mother.

Im trying not to laugh.Trust me i have 2 children,and do i need to say anything else.No,i didnt have a x ray machine,a microscope on hand at the time.However im pretty sure i helped make those kids.Whats this to do with monkeys?!? having progressively human babies?Are you saying humans having human children proves your theory.It doesnt.

We can use indirect evidence though, like a paternity test and thereby establish with a high degree of certainty whether he is the father.

Yes that too,once again this has nought to do with what we are talking about.

Demanding direct observation is silly and would kill off 99% of modern science.

So when darwinists say gravity, germ ,and monkey to man are rock solid theories that CAN be directly observed,they only actually mean gravity and germ theory and their effects can be observed.Gotcha.

Easy to mock an idea you don't understand. I do agree though that it would help if you read more on the subject.

Increased cranial capacity is not a guarantee of intelligence,and ive read plenty.Why did you show me a graph of varying primate brain sizes?How are they connected?How did a prefrontal cortex develop?Just because i chose not to make long posts does not mean i havent researched the topic.You are correct though,i find it easy to mock this topic....really i should tone that down.Even though its ridiculous.Im being honest,i find the arguments used to back up monkey to man almost comedic.No i tell a lie,it is funny.My bad.

 

[interested in life]

i guess i a lot hairier than my begotten,maybe you guys are right.I like bananas more than them also.Whoa im inadvertantly proving you right.Ill get my coat.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

i guess i a lot hairier than my begotten,maybe you guys are right.I like bananas more than them also.Whoa im inadvertantly proving you right.Ill get my coat.

Ironically, bananas are quite a good example of evolution.

Wild bananas:

Commercial bananas:

Thousands of years of human artificial selection have modified the wile banana to what you buy in store today.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ironically, bananas are quite a good example of evolution.

Wild bananas:

Commercial bananas:

Thousands of years of human artificial selection have modified the wile banana to what you buy in store today.

The banana and other fruits and vegetables are great examples. So to are vaccines. Why do we need to update our vaccines every so often, especially for influenza? Because the species of virus or micro-organisms that our vaccines and antibiotics target are evolving. In point of fact, if they were not evolving, then vaccination would have effectively rendered them inept, and for certain organisms, placed them in danger of extinction.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The banana and other fruits and vegetables are great examples. So to are vaccines. Why do we need to update our vaccines every so often, especially for influenza? Because the species of virus or micro-organisms that our vaccines and antibiotics target are evolving. In point of fact, if they were not evolving, then vaccination would have effectively rendered them inept, and for certain organisms, placed them in danger of extinction.

Ah, we did that with smallpox! Therefore evolution is a godless lie!

 

[plindboe]

Im trying not to laugh.Trust me i have 2 children,and do i need to say anything else.No,i didnt have a x ray machine,a microscope on hand at the time.However im pretty sure i helped make those kids.

I haven't said anything contrary to that. I do believe that your children are yours. My point was that we can know things, even without direct observation.

Whats this to do with monkeys?!?

You'll have to ask Cassiterides. He's the one saying that direct observation is the only thing that matters.

having progressively human babies?Are you saying humans having human children proves your theory.It doesnt.

I haven't said anything like that.

Yes that too,once again this has nought to do with what we are talking about.

That's what people in this thread were talking about. It seems you've entered a debate without even knowing what it's about.

So when darwinists say gravity, germ ,and monkey to man are rock solid theories that CAN be directly observed,they only actually mean gravity and germ theory and their effects can be observed.Gotcha.

I haven't said anything like that.

Increased cranial capacity is not a guarantee of intelligence,and ive read plenty.Why did you show me a graph of varying primate brain sizes?How are they connected?

I showed it to you because you appeared to deny common ancestry. The graph shows that skulls in the human lineage grew in cranial capacity over 3 million years, from about the size of a modern chimp skull, to the size of a modern human skull.

How did a prefrontal cortex develop?

Dunno. Why? I never claimed to be omniscient.

Just because i chose not to make long posts does not mean i havent researched the topic.You are correct though,i find it easy to mock this topic....really i should tone that down.Even though its ridiculous.Im being honest,i find the arguments used to back up monkey to man almost comedic.No i tell a lie,it is funny.My bad.

I find your religious beliefs ludicrous as well. But I don't find it useful or mature to ridicule them, especially not in a science discussion.

Peter

 

[Cassiterides]

The links you gave me are trash.You won't actually look at real ones (other than to maybe glance them over before going over to AIG), why should I look at Creation Ministry propaganda? I've seen plenty of it already.

And why should i look at evolution fairytale propaganda?

You refuse the links i gave you, and refused to watch the video i gave you. In other words you have no interest in debate or looking at both sides of the evidence.

Cassiterides, you are just wasting my time and everyone else's here. You are not interested in any "Honest Debate," despite your claims to the contrary (I guess we all know what that makes you). If all you are going to do is repeat "no it isn't," demand "100% accuracy" and cite creationist propaganda, I am not interested in wasting anymore time with you. You are a closed mine. I feel bad for you. Have a nice life, and I hope one day you will allow your eyes to be opened to reality.

Same to you (person who refused to click on one link i provided, or watch the video i provided).Shut your eyes to all the evidence.

 

[tanzanos]

Equivocation.Its obvious humans beget humans.I get a bit lost trying to tie that in with monkey like creatures producing mutated super primates aka us.Thats a huge leap of faith.I obviously need to study more evolutionary textbooks so i can imagine these super monkeys and their super intelligence.

You are obviously unaware of the fact that chimps and bonobos have the same blood types as us and therefore we can inter transfuse blood between the species. This means that a chimp can give you blood if it has the same type as you whereas other humans who do not cannot give you blood. Neat eh? This cannot happen if we were not closely related.

 

[interested in life]

I haven't said anything contrary to that. I do believe that your children are yours. My point was that we can know things, even without direct observation.

You missed my point that some things cant be used to prove others.The fact that my children are mine, has nothing to do with the goo to zoo to you.Im not even sure how this equates?
Its a terrible comparison.

You'll have to ask Cassiterides. He's the one saying that direct observation is the only thing that matters.

It certainly helps when formulating a hypothesis.Saying things like monkey to man is true because we can deduce that humans have babies is bizarre reasoning.

That's what people in this thread were talking about. It seems you've entered a debate without even knowing what it's about.

It appears you keep insulting my intelligence because i hold a view contrary to yours.I dont mind,but it makes for poor dialogue.

I showed it to you because you appeared to deny common ancestry.

Ill make it clearer,i MOST CERTAINLY deny we came from monkeys or monkey ancestry.

The graph shows that skulls in the human lineage grew in cranial capacity over 3 million years, from about the size of a modern chimp skull, to the size of a modern human skull.

you ignored my comment regarding cranial capacity and increased size doesnt correlate to increased intelligence nor did you answer about how the prefrontal cortex developed.Without soft tissue to study,we have no idea whether these monkeys were smarter.Unless you are a naturalist who really really really wants this to be true.

dunno

Agreed.

 

[interested in life]

You are obviously unaware of the fact that chimps and bonobos have the same blood types as us and therefore we can inter transfuse blood between the species. This means that a chimp can give you blood if it has the same type as you whereas other humans who do not cannot give you blood. Neat eh? This cannot happen if we were not closely related.

Without running to google,im sure man has managed to transplant pigs organs into humans.Now we are related closely to pigs or is there another explanation?