Snakes with hind legs lasted 70 million years

[BroRoyVa79]

Let's see what your fellow YE creationist has in mind that he thinks is strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Your fellow YE creationist says there is. You guys might want to sort out what you believe, and get back to us when you know?

.....

As Kurt Wise admits, the existence of all these predicted transitionals is strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. But even more convincing,there's never a transitional where there shouldn't be any.

So I went out and found the article you quoted for Dr. Kurt Wise since I was curious about the context of that quote and it's the only reason I'm posting in this topic. Here's what I found.

TLR version: The context of the quote is based on the evolutionary understanding of these forms, they meet the requirement as per that understanding. AT THAT TIME IN 1995 and Wise was arguing that Creation scientists didn't have the resources to go out and investigate these claims in the field, AT THAT TIME IN 1995. So from the outside looking in, yes, he concluded this was strong evidence for stratomorphic intermediate forms. However, he went on to provide a Creationist example for the forms through speculative theory since he was unable to go out and handle the fossils nor was Creationist Paleontology at a strong state resource-wise to do so AT THAT TIME IN 1995.

First, the general context of the article is that, at the time of the writing of this article, which was 1995, Creationist paleontology was in its infancy. Remember, the time of writing this article was 1995. The context was that Dr. Wise was imploring Creationists to not get bogged down arguing over transitional forms. The following quotes provide more contexts as to Dr. Wise's view on the transitional forms. All emphasis mine, keep in mind I'm pulling these quotes to give context to Dr. Wise's quoted statement:

"The commonness of transitional forms in the fossil record is an intuitive prediction of most macroevolutionary models. As a result, the traditional transitional forms issue has a high
priority to the evolutionist. However, it is important to realize that what is important to an evolutionist may not be important to a creationist. Given that young-age creationists have very limited resources (time, money, researchers, lab facilities, training, etc.), each issue should be evaluated and prioritized with reference to the creation model. Optimally, issues should then be addressed in the creationist order of prioritization without regard to the prioritization given in other models. Prioritization should begin with the most obvious and broadscale (that is, first-order) patterns and characteristics in each discipline, and then work down through the less obvious and finer-scaled (that is, second-, third-, etc. order) patterns. Although identification and evaluation of first-order fossil record patterns has only begun, a list of first-order patterns would likely include (not necessarily in order of priority)..."
pg, 217

After listing the priorities he feels creationists should worry about, also on page 217, he states the following:

"The traditional transitional forms issue is nowhere found in this list of the first-order patterns of the fossil record, and this author does not feel it should ever be accorded such an ‘honour’. To be wise stewards of His resources creationists should concentrate study on the first-order characteristics of the fossil record and not quibble about such details as the traditional transitional forms issue until the larger issues have been taken care of."
pg, 217

After giving a brief explanation on the process of evaluating organisms by using a whale to show how resources, time, etc, and specialty (biologist, paleontologist, or systematist, etc.) would further restrict the process, Dr. Wise goes on to say:

"Given the radically different biosystematic, geologic, biologic, and querying schemes which are utilized by creationists and evolutionists, it will rarely (if ever) be true that the characters most interesting to the creationist will have been evaluated by the evolutionist in his studies. [Note that this is not to say that the evolutionist is being deceptive in not including these characters . . . it’s just that he is being a good steward of his resources and only evaluating those characters which are pertinent to his questions.] As a result, as a creationist properly evaluates the evolutionary claims of transitional
forms, it will be necessary for the creationist to go to the original material and make his own observations."
pg, 217

After briefly saying that at the time of the writing Creationists did not have the resources to spread themselves thin and worry about dealing with transitional forms in which they would go examine the remains of the organisms themselves, he states the following about the transitional form issue and the future of Creationists dealing with it:

"As claimed above, the traditional transitional forms issue argument is important to the evolutionist. It has always been an evolutionary argument, and it is inherently alien to the creationist. Any time a creationist deals with the traditional transitional forms issue he is playing on an alien field and at a substantial disadvantage . . . a draw in such a game will result in a win for the evolutionist. One of the inherent advantages the evolutionist has always had in this game is vocabulary. ‘Transitional form’, for example, is an interpretive term — it has meaning only within the evolutionary model; it has no inherent meaning in the creation model. Also, given that the word is defined by evolutionary theory, different evolutionary theories can (and do) have different meanings for ‘transitional form’. For
example, Stephen Jay Gould’s different definition of transitional form from that of the gradualists has caused all manner of misunderstanding of Gould’s belief in transitional forms ... leading some creationists, for example, to erroneously conclude that Gould does not believe Archaeopteryx is a transitional form."
pg, 217-218, Dr. Wise sources an article written by Gould and Eldredge in Paleobiology, 3(2):115-151, 1977.

He goes on,
"Given the interpretive and ambiguous nature of the term, it is important that creationists NOT use ‘transitional form’ in their argumentation. This is why the terms ‘stratigraphic intermediate’, ‘morphological intermediate’, and ‘stratomorphic intermediate’ have been introduced into creationist literature with the suggestion that they be used in traditional transitional forms issue arguments."
pg, 218, Dr. Wise sources a book he wrote with C.E. Simpson in 1992.

He goes on to define a stratigraphic intermediate fossil as "a fossil which lies stratigraphically between two other fossils or between the lowest stratigraphic representatives of two fossil groups." pg, 218

He goes on to define a stratigraphic intermediate fossil group as "a set of fossils whose lowest stratigraphic member is between two other fossils or between the lowest stratigraphic representatives of two fossil groups." pg, 218

He goes on to define a morphological intermediate fossil as "a fossil which is in some sense morphologically intermediate between two other fossils or between the shared characters of each of two other fossil groups. It must be noted that the TYPE of morphological intermediacy (fully- versus partially developed features, single versus multiple features, etc.) is not specified in this term." pg, 218

He goes on to define a morphological intermediate fossil group as "a fossil group whose shared characters are in some sense morphologically intermediate between two other fossils or between the shared characters of each of two other fossil groups." pg, 218

He goes on to define a stratomorphic intermediate fossil and/or stratomorphic intermediate fossil group as "a fossil (or fossil group) which is BOTH a stratigraphic intermediate AND a morphological intermediate between two other fossils or two other fossil groups." pg, 218

Dr. Wise goes on to reiterate that the above terms are more descriptive than interpretive and less vague than "transitional forms." pg, 218

Now he goes on to say the following:
"In various macroevolutionary models, stratomorphic intermediates might be expected to be any one or more of several different forms:—
(a) inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates;
(b) stratomorphic intermediate species;
(c) higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates; and
(d) stratomorphic [intermediate] series.
As an example (and to provide informal definitions), if predictions from Darwin’s theory were re-stated in these terms, one would expect to find:—
(a) numerous stratomorphic intermediates between any ancestor-descendent species pair (numerous interspecific stratomorphic intermediates);
(b) species which were stratomorphic intermediates between larger groups (stratomorphic intermediate species);
(c) taxonomic groups above the level of species which were stratomorphic intermediates between other pairs of groups (higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates); and
(d) a sequence of species or higher taxa in a sequence where each taxon is a stratomorphic intermediate between the taxa stratigraphically below and above it (stratomorphic series).
With this vocabulary as a beginning, the traditional transitional forms issue can be gradually transformed into a non-traditional form, more suitable to the creationist researcher." pg, 218

Notice, he's saying based on stratomorphic intermediates, they might expect to find these things.
Then he goes on to say:
"Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory." pg, 218

And now PART of the infamous quote:
"Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius(between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids).
pg, 218 Dr. Wise cites a few sources here. For Baragwanathia, Steward and Rothwell, 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants, pgs114-115. For Pikaia, Gould, 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, pgs 321-323. For Purgatorius, Carroll, 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, pg 467. and finally for Proconsul, Carroll, 1988. pg, 473.

Next PART of the infamous quote:
"Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors."
pg, 218, Wise cites Hopson, 1994, Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution, pgs 190-219. And Carroll, 1988. pgs, 573-530.

Next PART of the infamous quote:
"Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
pgs, 218-219, Wise cites Ostrom, 1994. Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution. pgs, 160-177. Thomson, same book, pgs, 85-107. Ahlberg and Milner, 1994. Nature, 368:507-514. Gingerich, 1994. Natural History, 103(4):86-88. Gould, same magazine issue 103(5): 9-15. Zimmer, 1995. Discover, 16(1):82-84. Gingerich, 1983. Journal of Geological Education, 31:140-144. And finally, he cites himself, CEN Tech.J Wise 8(2): 160-165.

Afterward, Wise goes on to give explanations according to the Creationist history of the world. I'm going to oversimplify, read it if you want the details. I quoted all the above for the context of the infamous quote:
1) God created creatures with such complexity already in them.
2) These creatures were part of biological communities unfamiliar to us.
3) Pre-Flood ecosystems were probably more tightly structured than today and strongly biozoned.
4) The Global Flood explains the commonness of fossils, rarity of bioturbation, high species preservability, and the first-order randomness of the first appearance of higher taxa.
5) The Flood buried plant and animal communities in the sequence they were encountered.
6) Post-Flood catastrophism caused creatures to spread across the earth and thus various stratomorphic series are examples of post-Flood intrabaraminic diversification under conditions of secular cooling and drying.
pg, 219
Then he goes on to explain how the aforementioned confirmed stratomorphic fossils fit within the proposed explanation.

The context of the quote is based on the evolutionary understanding of these forms, they meet the requirement as per that understanding versus what Creationists would think. In 1995 and Wise was arguing that Creation scientists didn't have the resources to go out and investigate these claims in the field, in 1995. He argued that Creationists should instead focus on the beauty and complexity of organisms since they didn't have the resources to go out and handle fossils in 1995. So at that time, without further information, Wise accepted the reports of his secular peers.

Source: Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms'

Here's the reality beyond the context, he brought up 11-12 things out of how many fossils and supposed intermediate forms? That's a victory? Seriously? And again this was in 1995.

Almost that many were dropped from the list: Creation 15(3):40-44, June 1993, Creation 33(2):12-15, April 2011.

 

[The Barbarian]

The context of the quote is based on the evolutionary understanding of these forms

No. Wise describes them in his own context, which is why within the paper he refers to them as stratomorphic intermediates, rather than the scientific term "transitional forms." He merely notes as a number of other creationists who happen to be biologists admit, these numerous transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory:
"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. "
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

they meet the requirement as per that understanding. AT THAT TIME IN 1995 and Wise was arguing that Creation scientists didn't have the resources to go out and investigate these claims in the field, AT THAT TIME IN 1995. So from the outside looking in, yes, he concluded this was strong evidence for stratomorphic intermediate forms. However, he went on to provide a Creationist example for the forms through speculative theory since he was unable to go out and handle the fossils nor was Creationist Paleontology at a strong state resource-wise to do so AT THAT TIME IN 1995.

Yep. Still a major problem. To date, for example, no creationist has come up with a satisfactory explanation for cetacean transitionals, which conflict with the creationist flood story. Nor can they explain the large and growing number of fossil hominids connecting our own species with more primitive hominins.

One of the weird misconceptions in your sources is the idea of "mosaics." Your guy completely misunderstood what Eldredge and Gould were saying about this. They were demonstrating that evolution does not proceed gradually, with all characteristics changing in synchrony. Rather,they form mosaics, with some features advanced and others not so. They pointed out that mosaics don't count as examples of slow and gradual evolution. The whole point, which they lavishly documented (including many examples that YE creationist Kurt Wise presented as strong evidence for macroevolution) is that evolutionary changes tend to be punctuated with longer period of stasis as the organism becomes well-adapted to its environment. Mosaic fossils are exactly what your guy denies; clear evidence for macroevolution (as Wise and other creationists admit)

Here's the reality beyond the context, he brought up 11-12 things out of how many fossils and supposed intermediate forms?

No. He listed three specific fossils and fourteen entire series, some with dozens of transitionals. And he only scratched the surface. Would you like me to show you some more?

That's a victory?

He didn't think of it that way. He acknowledged it was serious problem for creationists, one for which they had no answer. It's gotten a lot worse, as more and more transitionals have been discovered. Would you like me to show you a few of those?

And again this was in 1995.

Yep. And we find important new transitionals almost monthly. So the problem has multiplied in the new millennium.

Some important transitional forms seen since Wise's paper include:

• Tiktaalik - the most primitive tetrapod/fish transitional.
• Gerobatrachus - the "frogamander" transitional between primitive amphibians and anurans (frogs and their relatives)
• Pappochelys, a very primitive turtle transitional, with gastralia forming a primitive plastron and dorsal ribs enlarged and widened.
• Archemastax divida, a fossil ant linking three previously-unclear genera
• Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid that links tree-dwelling apes with bipedal apes like Australopithecines
• Anchiornis, a small feathered dinosaur transitional between feathered troodontids and true avialans (flying dinosaurs and birds)
• Homo floresiensis an advanced hominid, much like H. erectus, but much smaller.
• Australopithecus sedeba, an advanced Australopithecine, transitional between primitive Australopithecies like A. africanus, and Homo, our own genus
• Peregocetus pacificus a whale transitional between clearly land-adapted whales like Pakicetus and Indohyus and more water-adapted whales like Ambulocetus.

There are lots more. How many more would you like to see?

The linked list of "Abandoned Transitionals" is largely fraudulent. Would you like me to show you some of them?

 

[dad]

Of course. It's a parable, like the rest of the story.

So Eve was a parable rather than an actual woman. Got it.

The text itself says that

Nothing remotely similar actually.

I guess you think Paul speaking by the Holy Ghost was wrong also.
2Co 11:3 -But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1Ti 2:13 -For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

the DNA in Adam's body would have made Eve a male, not a female.

Have you seen DNA from pre-flood times? Why speak as if you had the slightest idea what you are talking about? No genetics in Adam made Eve anything. God created her using a bone from Adam.

So we know it wasn't a literal cloning.

No one said anything about cloning.

He created all things. Just not ex nihilo in many cases.

We know. That does not mean Eve was not a real woman. How about her kids were they fiction also?

He made man from something already created that later resulted in man.

If I make a clay jar, I make something from material that was here already. The jar does not make itself. Man was created.

 

[The Barbarian]

So Eve was a parable rather than an actual woman. Got it.

Ah, your error is in supposing that a parable can't involve a real person. Bad assumption,that.

No one said anything about cloning.

That's what taking a bit of tissue from one organism and making a complete new organism out of it means.

Have you seen DNA from pre-flood times?

Yep. We have DNA from humans back... (Barbarian checks) ... about 430,000 years. The flood, if it's not an allegory (and no one knows for sure) likely took place near the Mountains of Urartu (Ararat, which is not Mt. Ararat) about 7,000 to 9,000 years ago. The mountains covered by that sudden flood, when the Mediterranean broke through the Bosphorus and rapidly flooded the settlements in the area.

Why speak as if you had the slightest idea what you are talking about?

Because I know about those things.

No genetics in Adam made Eve anything.

If you take that story as a literal history, it would. Of course, it's a parable.

 

[dad]

Ah, your error is in supposing that a parable can't involve a real person. Bad assumption, that.

Paul made that error in the verses cited? Adam was a real man as the genealogies in the bible shows. Eve was the woman who was deceived. Nothing suggesting she was not really alive anywhere in the bible. Eve is called the mother of us all and some names of her children are given, such as Seth. You think Seth is a parable too?

Yep. We have DNA from humans back... (Barbarian checks) ... about 430,000 years. The flood, if it's not an allegory (and no one knows for sure) likely took place near the Mountains of Urartu (Ararat, which is not Mt. Ararat) about 7,000 to 9,000 years ago.

Absolutely false. You dating is absolutely belief-based and has no real connection to the actual time. I suspect the flood was around the time of the KT layer, which makes it 65 or 70 million years ago in time claimed by science. The times are mostly based on ratios of isotopes, which science has assumed were formed in this nature. Nothing to do with real-time! You cannot conflate actual time with belief-based isotope ratio time.

The mountains covered by that sudden flood, when the Mediterranean broke through the Bosphorus and rapidly flooded the settlements in the area.

Speculation. Can't be supported.

Because I know about those things.

No. You certainly do not.

If you take that story as a literal history, it would. Of course, it's a parable.

Sorry, you do not get to wave away the flood because it does not agree with your beliefs about isotope ratios. Nor do you get to pretend Eve is not a real woman in the bible. The jig is up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Ah, your error is in supposing that a parable can't involve a real person. Bad assumption,that.

Paul made that error in the verses cited?

Nope. In fact, Paul asserted that the story of Abraham and Isaac was a parable. So you're just wrong in asserting that you can't have parables about real people.

Adam was a real man as the genealogies in the bible shows.

As I showed you earlier.

[quote[Eve was the woman who was deceived. Nothing suggesting she was not really alive anywhere in the bible.[/quote]

Your error is, as I showed you earlier, in assuming that there can't be parables about real people. So now you think Abraham and Isaac weren't real people? C'mon.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
Ah, your error is in supposing that a parable can't involve a real person. Bad assumption,that.

Eve was the first woman and mother of all, including Cain and Able and Seth. That has nothing to do with a parable.

Nope. In fact, Paul asserted that the story of Abraham and Isaac was a parable.

Chapter and verse?

So you're just wrong in asserting that you can't have parables about real people.

False claim, I never said that. It is irrelevant when talking about actual events and people. Lessons are to be learned from what happened to Israel and everyone. That does not mean you can wave them away as some parable. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

No. Wise describes them in his own context, which is why within the paper he refers to them as stratomorphic intermediates, rather than the scientific term "transitional forms." He merely notes as a number of other creationists who happen to be biologists admit, these numerous transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory:
"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. "
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Already linked this, the context was what I said it was. Did you even read Wise's article or did you just go out on the internet, find an atheist talking point and post it?

He says they are only strong evidence through the eyes of an evolutionist. There's a whole lot before and after that small paragraph where he says, as of the writing of the article, that those would be considered evidence for evolution. In that massive context before that small paragraph, he is pointing out that at that time Creationists didn't have the resources to go out and investigate the supposed forms for themselves and challenge it. So he made a conclusion based on being on the outside looking in.

Yep. Still a major problem. To date, for example, no creationist has come up with a satisfactory explanation for cetacean transitionals, which conflict with the creationist flood story. Nor can they explain the large and growing number of fossil hominids connecting our own species with more primitive hominins.

Creationists deal with fossils all the time:

CMI's List of Articles dealing with Whale Fossils
How do they conflict with a Flood story? Unless you think somehow a massive catastrophic Flood is not going to kill some of the creatures in the seas, I'm confused about how dead sea creatures conflict with a Flood. Oh, I'm guessing because the Bible didn't list sea creatures as among the creatures that died during the Flood?

You remember that link I posted in the other topic about hyperbole?

Yes, some sea creatures died during the Flood.

CMI's List of Articles dealing with hominids

Some of the fossils you listed were listed in this article as dropped from the transitional form list: Abandoned Transitional Forms

So I wonder if you keep up with changes as much as they do? And these are just CMI's list. I've listened to a Paleontologist who worked with other Paleontologists in the field for over 50 years. During that time he heard them be honest about their findings and thoughts regarding evolution, the evidence, etc. in everyday, down-to-earth conversations. Short version, they don't think the theory is worth anything, but they don't have anything else to believe that challenges a religious view of the origins of the universe.

But the point was that he worked in Paleontology for 50+ years and is conveying all of his experience. Oh, he still does it from time to time as an older guy.

Creationists deal with these subjects, whether you find them satisfactory or not is another thing. They tend to point out problems in the transitional fossils. Some of which, later on, or at that time, secular scientists also point out.

Just like they deal with plenty of claims. There are plenty of Creationists groups out there and more will rise as time moves on.

 

[The Barbarian]

Already linked this, the context was what I said it was. Did you even read Wise's article or did you just go out on the internet, find an atheist talking point and post it?

I linked it for you. Here it is again:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

He says they are only strong evidence through the eyes of an evolutionist.

No, he says it's strong evidence, period.
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
ibid

Wise's primary defense is that the order of intermediates in the fossil record is perhaps just luck, and that closely-similar fossils could have lived in adjacent but slightly different environments, thus only simulating a series.
Other stratomorphic intermediates are probablygeographic intermediates (morphological intermediates between animals of two adjacent biozones which — probably because of their intermediate morphology — lived in the geographical zone lying at the contact of the two biozones) buried by transgressing Flood waters as stratigraphic intermediates,58 for example, Baragwanathia, the early tetrapod series, the mammal-like reptiles, and the bird series.

The few stratomorphic intermediates which remain (Pikaia, Purgatorius, Proconsul, the archaeocetes, and the phenacodontids) may be nothing more than morphological intermediates which ended up in stratigraphic intermediate position by one accident or another. Given the very high abundance of morphological intermediates in the present biota, and the relative rarity of stratomorphic intermediates in the fossil record (comparing the absolute number of stratomorphic intermediates with the number of ancestor/ descendant pairs which are necessary in macroevolutionary theory) suggests that a few stratomorphic intermediates might be expected in even a random burial process.59 The author suggests that when this is finally quantified, it will be found that the number of stratomorphic intermediates not immediately explainable in the creation model could reasonably be expected from a random depositional process.
ibid

Geologists have pointed out many, many problems with these interpretations, but Wise at least is trying. He repeatedly points out that creationism has no good explanation at this time, but expresses optimism that something might be found in the future.

There's a whole lot before and after that small paragraph where he says, as of the writing of the article, that those would be considered evidence for evolution.

Specifically, he points out that the data he mentions are very good evidence for evolution. His fellow biologist (and YE creationist) Todd Wood echoes his point:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
The truth about evolution
(continued next post)

 

[The Barbarian]

(continued from previous)

In that massive context before that small paragraph, he is pointing out that at that time Creationists didn't have the resources to go out and investigate the supposed forms for themselves and challenge it. So he made a conclusion based on being on the outside looking in.

He's not on the outside. He's well-trained in biology and paleontology, and knows the evidence, which is why he admits that the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is very good. It is. He just prefers his interpretation of Genesis. He's an honest creationist.

Unless you think somehow a massive catastrophic Flood is not going to kill some of the creatures in the seas, I'm confused about how dead sea creatures conflict with a Flood. Oh, I'm guessing because the Bible didn't list sea creatures as among the creatures that died during the Flood?

Wise very forthrightly addresses those conflicts:
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales.

(much technical data deleted; you'll need to go and read, it you want to understand his point)

Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. On the other hand, clues that an alternative solution might be forthcoming comes from the following considerations:

You remember that link I posted in the other topic about hyperbole?

Dr. Wise doesn't seem to think it's hyperbole. But then, he actually has put in the time to learn about it.

Some of the fossils you listed were listed in this article as dropped from the transitional form list: Abandoned Transitional Forms

Unfortunately, creation.com is not run by folks who are as honest as AiG seems to have become. I'll show you in detail in another post shortly. Suffice to say they weren't very honest about their claims.

So I wonder if you keep up with changes as much as they do?

I'm quite familiar with each of those stories. You'll see in just a bit. It's why that site is not very well respected, even by established creationist sites.

(stuff about an anonymous paleontologist with no evidence)

Yep, expected.

Creationists deal with these subjects, whether you find them satisfactory or not is another thing.

As Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood point out, transitional forms remain a problem for creationist, even if they suggest that someday answers might be found.

Just like they deal with plenty of claims. There are plenty of Creationists groups out there and more will rise as time moves on.

Very possible. We're seeing more "sun goes around the Earth" groups and more "flat Earth groups." It's a time when many politicians think the truth is whatever you want it to be. But YE creationism is dying out in America, albeit slowly.

Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope.
...It will take a lot more than that, though, to stop Americans’ growing acceptance of evolution and apparent shift away from the strict creationist view of the origin of the species.

New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the “Young Earth” creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.
Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope.

 

[The Barbarian]

As promised, we'll go over the "Gish gallop" of supposedly "abandoned transitional forms." Lots of dishonesties and misconceptions, so this might involve few posts. Let's get started...

Tiktaalik:
"Alas for Tiktaalik as a missing link, this assumption has been faulted. Several well-preserved footprints undoubtedly made by a four-legged animal were found in Poland in rock ‘dated’ at 18 million years older than Tiktaalik."

Since it's quite common for populations to continue long after species have evolved from them, this bothers no paleontologist. The creationist objection is known as the "if you're alive, your uncle must be dead" fallacy.

Tiktaalik remains an important transition, a fish with limbs having the same bones as tetrapods. It precedes Acanthostega, a fish with with true legs.

Figure 4 | Cladogram of the pectoral fins of taxa on the tetrapod stem. Unlike other tetrapodomorph fishes (1), Tiktaalik has reduced the unjointed lepidotrichia, expanded the radials to a proximal, intermediate and distal series, and established multiple transverse joints in the distal fin. The fin also retains a mosaic of features seen in basal taxa. The central axis of enlarged endochondral bones is a pattern found in basal sarcopterygians and accords with hypotheses that a primitive fin axis is homologous to autopodial bones

Published in Nature 2006

The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb
Neil H. Shubin, Edward B. Daeschler, Farish A. Jenkins

As you see, there is a transition from the lobed fins of fish like coelacanths, to tetrapod legs. This occurred over about 60 million years, so it's not surprising that any one of these survived a few million years after others evolved.

The key for Tiktaalik is that we see true metacarpals and carpals in the limbs of this fish. It also had a moveable head, which is an advantage for a fish with limbs.
These are a few of the reasons that Tiktaalik remains a transitional form.

The creationist term "missing link" is due to a misreading of paleontological literature. It's actually, "missing lynx." And it's since been found:

Lynx issiodorensis, sometimes called the Issoire lynx, is an extinct species of lynx that inhabited Europe during the late Pliocene to Pleistocene epochs, and may have originated in Africa during the late Pliocene. It is named after the town of Issoire where the first remains were found. It probably became extinct during the end of the last glacial period.[1]

It is generally considered as the ancestor of all four species of lynx alive today. Its skeleton resembled that of living lynxes, but it had shorter and more robust limbs, with a larger head and longer neck. As a result, the Issoire lynx more closely resembled a typical member of the cat family than do its extant descendants.
Lynx issiodorensis - Wikipedia WFTH-I

These stories are fun to debunk, but take some time. If you'd like to save us some time, feel free to pick out any examples, in that article that you think might be especially convincing, we'll debunk them first. Or I can just go sequentially. Up to you.

More later.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

His specific words prior to the paragraph where he mentions the evidence on Evolution:

"The commonness of transitional forms in the fossil record is an intuitive prediction of most macroevolutionary models. As a result, the traditional transitional forms issue has a high
priority to the evolutionist. However, it is important to realize that what is important to an evolutionist may not be important to a creationist. Given that young-age creationists have very limited resources (time, money, researchers, lab facilities, training, etc.), each issue should be evaluated and prioritized with reference to the creation model. Optimally, issues should then be addressed in the creationist order of prioritization without regard to the prioritization given in other models. Prioritization should begin with the most obvious and broadscale (that is, first-order) patterns and characteristics in each discipline, and then work down through the less obvious and finer-scaled (that is, second-, third-, etc. order) patterns. Although identification and evaluation of first-order fossil record patterns has only begun, a list of first-order patterns would likely include (not necessarily in order of priority)..."
pg, 217

Not that I didn't already post it or anything.
In other words, of course it is strong evidence to the Evolutionists, thus the Creationist has to accept that Evolutionists and Creationists would have been talking past each other AT THAT TIME IN 1995.

I can tell you for a fact, they have implemented his suggestions, WHICH WAS THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.

No longer would they consider it "strong evidence" since they have investigated and the articles I submitted indicate they have interacted with the information, data, etc.

Whether you agree with their conclusions is moot to what I why and what I posted.

Everything else is you and atheists on the internet putting words in his mouth. Ignoring the context of his article and thinking you have a "Gotcha moment" on Creationists.

I searched and there is no more information in current time on Dr. Wise's current views on those forms. This is the only article available from over two decades ago.

To sum up this point, here is Dr. Wise's conclusion in that article. For anyone else reading, you can go read the article or look above at all the quotes I posted to the context of that quote The Barbarian is so excited about.

His conclusion:
"Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model’s incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."
pg, 221

So again, in 1995, Dr. Wise and other Creationists couldn't examine the information necessary to make a conclusion within the frame of the Young Earth Creation Model about the stratomorphic intermediates, thus he concluded, in 1995, that they were good evidence for Evolution then in 1995.

Since then, Creationists have challenged plenty of transitional forms when they were able to. Whether Dr. Wise still holds this view is uncertain since he has not written on transitional forms and the point of the article at that time was to emphasize that Creationists were at a resource disadvantage to prove their points. At that time, in 1995. I already posted articles of CMI challenging transitional forms since then and in current year.

 

[The Barbarian]

I realize that creationists generally don't want to talk about the many transitional series that Wise is honest enough to acknowledge. And I realize that Wise, back then, anticipated a creationist understanding of these transitional forms that could be supported by evidence. But his expectations have not been met; they still can't explain them.

So again, in 1995, Dr. Wise and other Creationists couldn't examine the information necessary to make a conclusion within the frame of the Young Earth Creation Model about the stratomorphic intermediates, thus he concluded, in 1995, that they were good evidence for Evolution then in 1995.

Here, 25 years later, they still can't

Since then, Creationists have challenged plenty of transitional forms when they were able to.

So far, they've all failed. If you doubt this, show me the best example you have, and we'll take a look.

Whether Dr. Wise still holds this view is uncertain since he has not written on transitional forms and the point of the article at that time was to emphasize that Creationists were at a resource disadvantage to prove their points. At that time, in 1995. I already posted articles of CMI challenging transitional forms since then and in current year.

Well, put up the best one you have, and we'll give it a go. What do you have?

 

[BroRoyVa79]

I realize that creationists generally don't want to talk about the many transitional series that Wise is honest enough to acknowledge. And I realize that Wise, back then, anticipated a creationist understanding of these transitional forms that could be supported by evidence. But his expectations have not been met; they still can't explain them.

According to you. Again, some were dropped from the list and the amount that should be there are not there and many that are on the list are questionable. I don't expect you to agree to any of that.

Here, 25 years later, they still can't

Again, according to you.

So far, they've all failed. If you doubt this, show me the best example you have, and we'll take a look.

Why? Your temperament tells me you will already reject it. Your worldview tells me you will already reject it. Your beliefs tell me you will already reject it. It is not the evidence that is the problem, it's the filter through which you interpret it that's the problem. Even with that filter, how you view the Bible, I already know you will reject it. So, why waste my time?

Well, put up the best one you have, and we'll give it a go. What do you have?

Again, why?
I just wanted to show that his quote was taken out of context. I succeeded in that. I didn't have nor do I currently have the desire to waste time in a back and forth when presuppositions will determine how one looks at the data.

I already listed Creationists articles dealing with transitional forms. You can feel free to go look through those.

 

[The Barbarian]

I realize that creationists generally don't want to talk about the many transitional series that Wise is honest enough to acknowledge. And I realize that Wise, back then, anticipated a creationist understanding of these transitional forms that could be supported by evidence. But his expectations have not been met; they still can't explain them.

According to you. Again, some were dropped from the list

There is no "list." Just a lot of transitionals. But AsI suggested, find one you think compelling, and put it up for discussion. If, on the other hand, you don't know enough about it to decide, what makes you think the claim is right?

Why?

For one thing, it would show you were confident enough in your beliefs to let them be examined for evidence. And failing to do so would indicate the opposite.

Your temperament tells me you will already reject it.

That's one more error for you. I know of several fossils, once thought to be transitional, that turned out to be not so. But there aren't very many of them. You might get lucky. But up to you.

Your worldview tells me you will already reject it.

No, your worldview convinced you. Nothing man does, including science, is foolproof. The difference in science, is that errors eventually are rejected as new evidence comes in.

Your beliefs tell me you will already reject it.

No, your beliefs misled you about that.

It is not the evidence that is the problem,

It is for creationists. Specifically, as Kurt Wise admits, very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Evidence is the way things work in science.

it's the filter through which you interpret it that's the problem.

Sorry, that postmodernist drabble doesn't work. There is an objective reality, and you can find it by looking at evidence.

So, why waste my time?

Depends on how much confidence you have in your beliefs. We're going to find out, now.

I just wanted to show that his quote was taken out of context.

The context is that for science, evidence matters, and not so much for creationists, who base their doctrines on faith. Just what I pointed out before.

Now, we'll see how strong that faith is. You're up.

 

[Brightmoon]

Post modernist Drabble - I’m stealing that

 

[dad]

I realize that creationists generally don't want to talk about the many transitional series that Wise is honest enough to acknowledge.

False. Some fish may be adapted to land or the other way round. That does not mean that there were no fish, or that things could not adapt right back as needed. All it means is that in the fossil record, which is only a record of the small fraction of life that could fossilize in the former world, some creatures died that are not clearly one fish or land creatures.

 

[Brightmoon]

Of course animals re- entered the water . Whale ancestors , for example . What’s your point ?

 

[dad]

View attachment 270530 Of course animals re- entered the water . Whale ancestors , for example . What’s your point ?

The point is God gave us the ability to adapt. So if a whale encountered some area that was shallow, or marshy or whatever, and needed to be able to adapt to land or water, that has nothing to do with TOE!