The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[Valetic]

Although it does make me wonder, even though there is a parent species, and evolution could very well be plausible for the biodiversity throughout the world, that doesn't necessarily refute the idea that macro evolution isn't a reality, because while certain species may speciate away from a parent species, to me they are very much alike and you could say they are still the same kind of animal but just a different variant thanks to micro evolution. So a lion and a tiger are both different species but they are the same kind of animal and are felines or whatever but can produce a Liger. And a zebra and a donkey are two different species that produce a Zonkey. So now that I think about it I am beginning to open up to the idea that micro evolution can be a means to bio-diversify the planet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but when scientists identify something as a transitional fossil they create two narrow gaps between taxa where there used to one wide gap.

I made the same point to our onboard mensan (Wiccan Child) years ago.

A Question for Creationists - Post 295

 

[Astrophile]

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

Sorry, I made a mistake in the address of the website. It is www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml . I hope that this works; if it doesn't you could try googling 'Immaculate Conception'. Nonetheless, whatever 'mainstream Christianity' teaches about the conception of Mary, the Immaculate Conception is not the same thing as the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

 

[Valetic]

I made the same point to our onboard mensan (Wiccan Child) years ago.

A Question for Creationists - Post 295

Well yes but at some point you should find something where you say, "Aha! now this specimen is the bridge between the two species! Look! This is the offspring of the parent species! And look over there! That is the next species it evolved into!"

But you could actually have that happen already and say, "But what about in between those 2 species?"

Well what if there is no in between... What if that's it? How would you ever know for sure? Because the only observable evolution we have is micro evolved, it's a creature that's basically the same animal and is almost definitely the same kind or in the family with it some how. They are super identical to the point where you say "species x is the parent species. Species y and z are different variants that micro evolved from parent x." So to me they're all the same kind just a variant of that kind. What defines a kind? I'm not intelligent enough to answer that right now.

But my point is if something changes anatomically in a life form or its' seed it should be scientifically observable through whatever chemical or mechanical process or whatever. And I believe this is true with micro evolution. What you say may be true though. Evolutionists believe we come from apes and I must disagree. I don't think there is a leap from one to the other. I think there are all varieties of apes and some of them may have a common ancestors and other varieties of apes may have a different common ancestor than other apes but to go from ape to human, we have to trust we can leap from one kind of animal to another kind, otherwise we are apes.

 

[Bumble Bee]

Sorry, I made a mistake in the address of the website. It is www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml . I hope that this works; if it doesn't you could try googling 'Immaculate Conception'. Nonetheless, whatever 'mainstream Christianity' teaches about the conception of Mary, the Immaculate Conception is not the same thing as the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

Ok, I get what you are saying. Forgive me for misuse of the term “immaculate conception.” I meant the virgin birth of Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well what if there is no in between... What if that's it?

You know how they talk about wormholes in space travel?

Well there are wormholes on the earth.

Only wormholes in time -- not distance.

So several billion years could have passed on the earth, then the earth was "accordioned" to hide all those "time passages" and bingo -- YEC by way of 13.7 billion years!

That could even account for Colter's urantian gremlins!

Spoiler

Just kidding, of course!

 

[Valetic]

You know how they talk about wormholes in space travel?

Well there are wormholes on the earth.

Only wormholes in time -- not distance.

So several billion years could have passed on the earth, then the earth was "accordioned" to hide all those "time passages" and bingo -- YEC by way of 13.7 billion years!

That could even account for Colter's urantian gremlins!

Spoiler

Just kidding, of course!

I hate wormhole theories. Too paradoxical.

 

[Cantgetright]

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.

The

 

[Cantgetright]

The way I see it is simple we were no doubt created and my proof is this if we evolved from monkeys then why is there monkeys and humans but nothing in between why are monkeys not still evolving? to say we evolved as quickly as we did and there is no link between us and any other creature on earth pretty much answers the question

 

[Valetic]

The way I see it is simple we were no doubt created and my proof is this if we evolved from monkeys then why is there monkeys and humans but nothing in between why are monkeys not still evolving? to say we evolved as quickly as we did and there is no link between us and any other creature on earth pretty much answers the question

Because we were a rare mutant spawn that reproduced.

 

[pitabread]

The way I see it is simple we were no doubt created and my proof is this if we evolved from monkeys then why is there monkeys and humans but nothing in between why are monkeys not still evolving?

Right now it sounds like you've conceptualized evolution and life as evolving along a "ladder" of progression. This is an old-fashioned and incorrect way of looking at life and how it evolves.

I'd suggest starting here: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Spend some time learning about the process of evolution and it will become easier to conceptualize how it works. Particularly with respect to how populations of organisms branch off and diversify over time.

 

[Astrophile]

Although it does make me wonder, even though there is a parent species, and evolution could very well be plausible for the biodiversity throughout the world, that doesn't necessarily refute the idea that macro evolution isn't a reality, because while certain species may speciate away from a parent species, to me they are very much alike and you could say they are still the same kind of animal but just a different variant thanks to micro evolution. So a lion and a tiger are both different species but they are the same kind of animal and are felines or whatever but can produce a Liger. And a zebra and a donkey are two different species that produce a Zonkey. So now that I think about it I am beginning to open up to the idea that micro evolution can be a means to bio-diversify the planet.

This is simply going back to the point made by Pitabread in the opening post.

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".

Where do you draw the line between a finely graded transition within a specific group of organisms that is evolution within a "kind" and broader transitions across higher taxa? Is there any essential difference between the lion-tiger or horse-donkey-zebra transition on the one hand and the ape-australopithecine-Homo transition or the feathered dinosaur-Archaeopteryx-bird transition on the other?

 

[Valetic]

Where do you draw the line between a finely graded transition within a specific group of organisms that is evolution within a "kind" and broader transitions across higher taxa? Is there any essential difference between the lion-tiger or horse-donkey-zebra transition on the one hand and the ape-australopithecine-Homo transition or the feathered dinosaur-Archaeopteryx-bird transition on the other?

I'm not sure. I'm doing further research on it now, I think this is my halfway point between the OP and where I am, so I will continue the discussion later if I have anything to add from where we stand here...

 

[Chesterton]

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.

What's your definition of "transitional"?

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.

I'm not sure I understand. Why aren't fossils of the large non-isolated populations within the main population equally preserved?

 

[pitabread]

I guarantee you nobody has ever observed macro evolution before.

Insofar as "macroevolution" constitutes diversification of breeding populations into separate (reproductively isolated) populations, yes we have. This is speciation.

When you strip away all the labels and look at it from a gene flow perspective there are only a couple realities of genetic evolution:

1) Gene flow within a population where different members of that population reproduce with each other; and,
2) Isolation of gene flow between populations whereby separate populations of organisms evolve and diverge separately.

I'd suggest that speciation itself is a "macro-evolutionary" event. Everything after that is the same evolutionary process just compounded over time. There's no difference between evolution today versus yesterday versus a million years ago. It's all the same process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Insofar as "macroevolution" constitutes diversification of breeding populations into separate (reproductively isolated) populations, yes we have. This is speciation.

It is diversification of breeding populations beyond the limits of their own kinds.

Something God does not allow for.

And even if He did, macroevolution requires deep time.

 

[pitabread]

It is diversification of breeding populations beyond the limits of their own kinds.

What limits? If you want to argue for a biological limit to evolution, you'd best be prepared to explain it (with respect to biology).

And even if He did, macroevolution requires deep time.

Macroevolution requires divergence of single breeding populations into multiple reproductively isolated populations. We've observed this.

 

[AV1611VET]

What limits?

The first time a population emerges from another population that it cannot procreate with, it has violated the "ITS OWN KIND" stipulation.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Simple really, just concentrate on one line of speciation in the fossil record. For example the evolution of the whale, probably the most famous of them all. The whale should have a smooth fossil transition!

 

[Job 33:6]

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?

This isn't really a response. You aren't addressing 99% of what I said.

Regardless,

We can perform relative dating using superposition. So as long as someone can understand the simple concept that rocks on the bottom must predate rocks on top, they can understand that the fossil record matches genetics.

The reason rocks on the bottom are older, is that rocks on top would otherwise be floating in space if not for the deposition of material below.

The significance is in patterns we see, not so much the actual specific ages. Relative dating is enough to make the point.