The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[pitabread]

History is based on the testimony of people in the observations they have made and is recorded. Evolution is not.

Evolution is based on the observations people have made and the conclusions they have deduced. How is that any different from a historian studying ancient artifacts, archaeology and so on?

 

[pitabread]

There are no links between the alleged links, and there never can be. That's why the scientist is exasperated at the end of the clip.

Again, they are making fun of the "every transition = 2 new gaps" argument. It's a dumb argument.

And you need exactly that physical evidence if you want reasonable people to accept the claim based on physical evidence.

I've found that physical evidence is largely irrelevant in these discussions. If creationists wanted physical evidence, they'd be off combing the scientific literature and reading about it. But in general they don't.

 

[Chesterton]

Again, they are making fun of the "every transition = 2 new gaps" argument. It's a dumb argument.

They tried to make fun of it. They didn't think it through. They achieved the opposite.

I've found that physical evidence is largely irrelevant in these discussions. If creationists wanted physical evidence, they'd be off combing the scientific literature and reading about it. But in general they don't.

It's your job to prove your claim.

 

[pitabread]

They tried to make fun of it. They didn't think it through. They achieved the opposite.

Whatever you think.

It's your job to prove your claim.

Nope. The evidence for evolution is already bountiful. For anyone who wants to learn about it, the onus is entirely on them.

Leading a horse to water and all that...

 

[Valetic]

Evolution is based on the observations people have made and the conclusions they have deduced. How is that any different from a historian studying ancient artifacts, archaeology and so on?

I guarantee you nobody has ever observed macro evolution before.

 

[Heissonear]

Creationists often demand evidence for fossil transitions to "prove" evolution. But I've noticed a pattern when presented with evidence for these requests:

1) If it's a finely graduated transition within a specific group of organisms then it's simply accepted as evolution within a "kind".

2) On the other hand if it's broader transitions across higher taxa, then the fossil transitions are rejected as being independently created creatures. Then the demand is made for more finely graduated transitions in between taxa, and it's back to claiming evolution within a "kind".

Basically, there's no way to satisfy these kind of demands because creationists will always reject connecting graduated transitions to transitions across higher taxa. It effect they've left themselves an automatic "out" when it comes to accepting or rejecting fossil evidence and reconciling that evidence within their existing belief system.

No, incorrect.

There is a reason you are incorrect in understanding what fossils are require to prove evolution. You think there is no other alternative to evolution that one can reasonably turn to. Things releated to a Creator is beyond you to accept.

Once again, setting a clear plain english ststement for the missing fossils scientific enquiry has yet to find:

Between any two distinctively different creatures of the past there have been zero fossils unearthed that shows morphological details that one of the creatures morphologically changed into another distinctively different creatures.

Please show how an X morphologically changed into a deer.

Or any other X changing into a completely new snd different creature by use of fossils.

You have a post that tried to state a Presto-type evolution, where there are not any inbetween morphological detailed fossils that show one creature changed into a different one.

 

[Heissonear]

God’s spoken word and power is not something that can be contained in a lab and then tested. We accept Him creating our universe by speaking it into existence as a matter of faith, knowing that His words have proven true in all other matters. How can someone ask for a creationist to give another mechanism when the Lord Himself is the mechanism?

Those of the five senses are still trying. But what they have proposed about evolution has now put them in a scientific bind. They have only conjecture to stand on thand fossil record evidence. It is like the Lord Jesus planned to make them learn faith is required, even for geologic matters of the past.

 

[Heissonear]

One of the other members said earlier “supernatural “ and was told they meant “magic.” I say the mechanism is that the Lord spoke and there it was. How is that different? I can show you with the immaculate conception of Jesus. There was no sperm and yet Jesus was conceived. Again, something from nothing. However, because matter now exists, it cannot be re-demonstrated as a process of “something from nothing” when we are talking about large scale creation. God put the natural processes we see into order.

Very well said. The truth of a Creator who Creates. No magic. That is an ill viewpoint. And what Naturalism produces.

 

[Astrophile]

You don't think that's a reasonable demand? Also, don't you think a kind of catch-22 exists for evolution, since every time you identify something as a transitional fossil you create two new gaps between transitions, where there used to be one? And the next discovery creates four, and so on. Like a Zeno's paradox, the search for demonstrable transition could go on forever.

Yes, but when scientists identify something as a transitional fossil they create two narrow gaps between taxa where there used to be one wide gap. And the next discovery creates four narrower gaps, and so on until they reach a continuous transition. It's like going from broad-band stellar photometry to intermediate-band and narrow-band photometry and then to a scan of the stellar spectrum.

 

[Astrophile]

And yet how can we provide a tangible mechanism when one believes that the Lord and His word are that mechanism and the other believes he does not exist?

You have forgotten that there are many Christian scientists who believe in God but do not believe that He created living things directly in their present form.

 

[pitabread]

God’s spoken word and power is not something that can be contained in a lab and then tested.

The Sun's interior isn't something that can be contained in a lab either, but we can still model it and derive predictive testing based on it.

We accept Him creating our universe by speaking it into existence as a matter of faith, knowing that His words have proven true in all other matters. How can someone ask for a creationist to give another mechanism when the Lord Himself is the mechanism?

If you don't have a mechanism then why would I accept the idea that fully formed species were created from scratch? Especially since in lieu of the observable mechanism of evolution whereby we know how species reproduce and evolve over time?

You're effectively suggesting we replace knowledge with lack of knowledge. That makes no sense.

 

[Astrophile]

One of the other members said earlier “supernatural “ and was told they meant “magic.” I say the mechanism is that the Lord spoke and there it was. How is that different? I can show you with the immaculate conception of Jesus. There was no sperm and yet Jesus was conceived. Again, something from nothing. However, because matter now exists, it cannot be re-demonstrated as a process of “something from nothing” when we are talking about large scale creation. God put the natural processes we see into order.

You have not even got your own religion right. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary, the mother of Christ, was conceived without sin and her conception was thus immaculate - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml . It is quite different from the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

 

[Valetic]

You have forgotten that there are many Christian scientists who believe in God but do not believe that He created living things directly in their present form.

For the most part I'm one of those people. I think Noah and pals were actually around 12 feet tall. But that stems from me associating creation with the canopy theory also.

 

[pitabread]

But that stems from me associating creation with the canopy theory also.

Wow, I'd forgotten all about 'canopy theory'. I seem to remember Hovind advocating for that back in the day. Although I've noticed Hovind-style arguments have fallen out of favor which is probably not a surprise given his imprisonment.

 

[Valetic]

Wow, I'd forgotten all about 'canopy theory'. I seem to remember Hovind advocating for that back in the day. Although I've noticed Hovind-style arguments have fallen out of favor which is probably not a surprise given his imprisonment.

Well I was an evolution christian before mister Hovind a few months ago

Edit: Then I found out about a mister Ron Wyatt and I really started to stop doubting bible history.

 

[Astrophile]

There are no links between the alleged links, and there never can be. That's why the scientist is exasperated at the end of the clip. And you need exactly that physical evidence if you want reasonable people to accept the claim based on physical evidence.

It is interesting that this matter is discussed in Chapter 3 of Donald R. Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. On pages 78-80 the author explains Ernst Mayr's 'allopatric speciation model' in which 'small isolated populations on the fringes of the main population [are] the likeliest sources of new species.' This model is now generally accepted by biologists.

In 1972 Eldredge and Gould applied the allopatric speciation model to the fossil record, and found that if it is correct scientists should 'not expect to see the gradual transitions between species preserved very often; instead, they would expect to see new species when they immigrate back into the main population after their isolation and speciation event. In other words, they would appear suddenly in the fossil record', exactly as is observed.

You ought to read the book; it would help you to understand the relationship between the fossil record and evolution.

 

[Bumble Bee]

You have not even got your own religion right. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary, the mother of Christ, was conceived without sin and her conception was thus immaculate - http://www.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml . It is quite different from the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

The link won’t allow me to open it. But no, that is not what mainstream Christianity teaches at all.

 

[Valetic]

It is interesting that this matter is discussed in Chapter 3 of Donald R. Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. On pages 78-80 the author explains Ernst Mayr's 'allopatric speciation model' in which 'small isolated populations on the fringes of the main population [are] the likeliest sources of new species.' This model is now generally accepted by biologists.

In 1972 Eldredge and Gould applied the allopatric speciation model to the fossil record, and found that if it is correct scientists should 'not expect to see the gradual transitions between species preserved very often; instead, they would expect to see new species when they immigrate back into the main population after their isolation and speciation event. In other words, they would appear suddenly in the fossil record', exactly as is observed.

You ought to read the book; it would help you to understand the relationship between the fossil record and evolution.

This has me interested. I looked at the wiki for it but I'd like to read the book also. I'm curious to find out if a new species formed out of this process can still reproduce and continue the process or re-reproduce with the parent species?

 

[Astrophile]

This has me interested. I looked at the wiki for it but I'd like to read the book also. I'm curious to find out if a new species formed out of this process can still reproduce and continue the process or re-reproduce with the parent species?

According to Prothero (page 80), members of the newly formed species can reproduce with other members of the same species, but not with the main population (the parent species).

 

[Valetic]

According to Prothero (page 80), members of the newly formed species can reproduce with other members of the same species, but not with the main population (the parent species).

Well I'm cornered for now. Can you link me to any observational tests that have been recorded?