The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[Chesterton]

I think you're probably making fun of creationists if you even think that is a remotely sensible argument. They even made fun of this on Futurama (skip to 1:10) :

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.

 

[Valetic]

The Bible says the Hebrew word min.

"Kind" is merely a translation that everyone seems to interpret differently. Ask a dozen creationists to define that word and you'll get 13 different answers.

What do the scholars from the last several hundreds of years up until now say about it? Who cares about what under-qualified people think. This is your education you're worried about here.

"Proving" the Bible by blatantly contradicting what we observe in the natural world seems an odd route to me.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about now.

A few generations isn't much with respect to biological change though. But if you compound those changes over hundreds, thousands, or millions of generations would you not expect greater level of change?

Is that even possible? I really don't think there's much if any evidence for going from one kind of animal to another. There's all varieties of dog breeds and if you trace the lineage back hundreds of years apparently there really weren't that many (from what I learned).

That tells me nothing. I'm asking how something was done. Specifically how are life forms created fully formed from scratch. Explain the details.

From scratch? I mean now you are going into the topic of origins and that's a difficult road for evolutionists. Unless you are serious about searching for answers and not playing around on forums I would stay away from that one.

Obviously everything in existence in the material world we know has a beginning. Anything created had a beginning, hence when it was created. So that means something bigger than the observable universe did it in my book. And it was something beyond the natural world and beyond our natural minds so I say it was supernatural. I say it was my God.

 

[Valetic]

I think you're probably making fun of creationists if you even think that is a remotely sensible argument. They even made fun of this on Futurama (skip to 1:10) :

How about we identify what macro evolution is instead of identifying fossils? What is the anatomical change taking place between every generation? We can observe it right? Or have we found it yet? Or does it exist?

 

[Bumble Bee]

I actually think it would be more compelling to see live macro evolution than to see fossils because fossils can be incomplete or have more than one animal pressed into them.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is a biological boundary preventing compounded evolution then what is that boundary?

Sterility.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

Exactly. And this is the same reason that they cannot define "kind", because the moment they do, their case falls apart.

 

[Job 33:6]

I actually think it would be more compelling to see live macro evolution than to see fossils because fossils can be incomplete or have more than one animal pressed into them.

Live macro evolution, such as the fish to tetrapod transition can take some 50+ million years. So that will not be observed in our lifetime.

 

[Job 33:6]

How about we identify what macro evolution is instead of identifying fossils? What is the anatomical change taking place between every generation? We can observe it right? Or have we found it yet? Or does it exist?

Since I mentioned it above, how about the fish yo tetrapod transition of the mid to.late devonian. The anatomical change being fused skull to an unfused mobile neck/pectoral girdle, fused wrists to unfused rotating wrists, the introduction of robust shoulders, spiracles on the skull, and a primitive rib cage amd more.

Fish dominated in the early devonian and in earlier times. No land vertebrates existed. Terrestrial vertebrates existed in the late devonian and beyond. So by finding rock of the correct age, and finding rock of shallow.marine origin, as opposed to marine rock or terrestrial rock, scientists were able to dig down 10 feet below grade to find this shallow.marine rock with several part fish-tetrapod fossils depicting the transition from fish to tetrapod and from water to land.

Tiktaalik could have been in the ordovician or Cambrian or silurian. It could have been anywhere in the mesozoic or cenozoic. But it was ultimately found right where evolution predicted it to be. And it doesn't contain morphological traits that would disprove the theory, such as mammalian traits or any sort of bird or reptile derived traits. It has homologous traits of ancestral origin, but no traits or later derivation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, regarding change between a single generation, we will only see small changes like the ones we do today, because big changes are the summation of many small changes that can take thousands of generations. Just as when walking, a person can only be seen taking a few steps in a short period of time. Nobody is going to see someone walk around the planet 100 times in a single generation because it simply takes too long.

And nothing in biology or geology suggests that these small changes didn't happen in the past, aren't happening now nor won't happen in the future.

In fact, all evidence indicates that evolution has occurred in the past (the fossil record being one line of evidence, biostratigraphy, cytochrome c, ervs, chromosome 2, phylogenies of comparative anatomy etc).), is happening now (observed microevolution and speciation) and will keep happening (no evidence that it will ever stop as it is a fundamental part of our biology ie mutations).

 

[Job 33:6]

Indeed, evolution deniers really have no explanation for why biological phylogenies align with the fossil succession. Evolution is the only feasible explanation. The only explanation for why tetrapods/amphibians like tiktaalik are genetically more closely related to fish than to mammals (because tetrapods evolved from fish as amphibians)

 

[Valetic]

Live macro evolution, such as the fish to tetrapod transition can take some 50+ million years. So that will not be observed in our lifetime.

This is the kind of thing that leads me to say science is a religion. Evolution is a religion. It takes greater faith than Christians to believe in this stuff. The wind blows and you don't see where it comes from or where it is going.

 

[Valetic]

Since I mentioned it above, how about the fish yo tetrapod transition of the mid to.late devonian. The anatomical change being fused skull to an unfused mobile neck/pectoral girdle, fused wrists to unfused rotating wrists, the introduction of robust shoulders, spiracles on the skull, and a primitive rib cage amd more.

Fish dominated in the early devonian and in earlier times. No land vertebrates existed. Terrestrial vertebrates existed in the late devonian and beyond. So by finding rock of the correct age, and finding rock of shallow.marine origin, as opposed to marine rock or terrestrial rock, scientists were able to dig down 10 feet below grade to find this shallow.marine rock with several part fish-tetrapod fossils depicting the transition from fish to tetrapod and from water to land.

Tiktaalik could have been in the ordovician or Cambrian or silurian. It could have been anywhere in the mesozoic or cenozoic. But it was ultimately found right where evolution predicted it to be. And it doesn't contain morphological traits that would disprove the theory, such as mammalian traits or any sort of bird or reptile derived traits. It has homologous traits of ancestral origin, but no traits or later derivation.

There isn't a way to accurately date anything. You sound wise in what you have been taught but where is the proof for your claims?

 

[AV1611VET]

There isn't a way to accurately date anything. You sound wise in what you have been taught but where is the proof for your claims?

Only on paper.

 

[dqhall]

There isn't a way to accurately date anything. You sound wise in what you have been taught but where is the proof for your claims?

There is radiocarbon dating for more recent times and potassium-argon radio isotope dating for the more distant past. Petroleum geologists found fossils from drill core samples brought to the surface when drilling more than ten thousand feet below the surface of the land or offshore drilling through continental shelf bottoms. They were able to date the rock strata they were drilling through by indexing tiny fossils they found in sections of drill core. These scientist use technology to locate valuable deposits of oil and gas. They do not guess where to drill as drilling dry holes causes bankruptcies.

Someone used this Bible verse to try to find oil in Israel: Deuteronomy 33:24 (WEB) Of Asher he said, "Asher is blessed with children. Let him be acceptable to his brothers. Let him dip his foot in oil." A fundamentalist got investors together to fund drilling an oil well in what was the ancient tribal territory of Asher in Israel. They drilled a dry hole. The investors lost their money. They misinterpreted the Bible.

 

[Jimmy D]

This is the kind of thing that leads me to say science is a religion. Evolution is a religion. It takes greater faith than Christians to believe in this stuff. The wind blows and you don't see where it comes from or where it is going.

Vacuous rhetoric that demonstrates that you either don’t understand what science is, or religion, or both.

 

[Valetic]

There is radiocarbon dating for more recent times and potassium-argon radio isotope dating for the more distant past. Petroleum geologists found fossils from drill core samples brought to the surface when drilling more than ten thousand feet below the surface of the land or offshore drilling through continental shelf bottoms. They were able to date the rock strata they were drilling through by indexing tiny fossils they found in sections of drill core. These scientist use technology to locate valuable deposits of oil and gas. They do not guess where to drill as drilling dry holes causes bankruptcies.

Someone used this Bible verse to try to find oil in Israel: Deuteronomy 33:24 (WEB) Of Asher he said, "Asher is blessed with children. Let him be acceptable to his brothers. Let him dip his foot in oil." A fundamentalist got investors together to fund drilling an oil well in what was the ancient tribal territory of Asher in Israel. They drilled a dry hole. The investors lost their money. They misinterpreted the Bible.

Oil is actually the only place I am stumped with YEC. It's traditional view is that it was formed over millions of years. There isn't really evidence that I've found to show otherwise, so I'm left waiting to see if we find where it really comes from or not.

Likewise I feel like saying oil formed over millions of years also provides inconclusive evidence. I lean towards denying that they are actually fossil fuels but I have no evidence of where it comes from. All I can say is that it was already there if I was a die hard. But I'm not. I like to examine both sides of the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oil is actually the only place I am stumped with YEC.

I believe God created the earth with oil already in it, to be discovered in its time.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

I like to call these things "easter eggs."

 

[pitabread]

This is the kind of thing that leads me to say science is a religion. Evolution is a religion. It takes greater faith than Christians to believe in this stuff. The wind blows and you don't see where it comes from or where it is going.

The bulk of Earth's history cannot be observed in our lifetime either. Is history also a religion?

(See how silly this sounds?)

 

[Valetic]

The bulk of Earth's history cannot be observed in our lifetime either. Is history also a religion?

(See how silly this sounds?)

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

 

[pitabread]

What do the scholars from the last several hundreds of years up until now say about it?

If we're going by Biblical scholars, they don't tend to view Genesis as literal history.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about now.

Creationist beliefs are at odds with the results of scientific inquiry.

Is that even possible? I really don't think there's much if any evidence for going from one kind of animal to another.

"Kind" has no biological meaning. If you're going to argue for a biological barrier in nature, you have to define what that is. Otherwise there is nothing that is going to stop changes from compounding on changes.

From scratch? I mean now you are going into the topic of origins and that's a difficult road for evolutionists. Unless you are serious about searching for answers and not playing around on forums I would stay away from that one.

If creationists want to claim that fully formed species were created then I want to know how that can happen. Give me details.

And it was something beyond the natural world and beyond our natural minds so I say it was supernatural. I say it was my God.

But how did it happen? Simply saying "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything. How is it possible to create fully-formed living creatures from scratch?