The Colin Patterson quote: No Intermediate Fossils

[Loudmouth]

A new transitional fossil flea species found just this year:

"Here we report a new transitional flea, Saurophthirus exquisitus sp. nov., assigned to a new family Saurophthiridae fam. nov., from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of northeastern China. Saurophthirids are more similar to crown fleas than other stem fleas in having a relatively small body size, relatively short and slender piercing-sucking stylet mouthparts, comparably short and compact antennae, rows of short and stiff bristles on the thorax, and highly elongated legs. The new finding greatly improves our understanding of the morphological transition to the highly specialized body plan of extant fleas."

New transitional fleas from China highlighting diversity of Early Cretaceous ectoparasitic insects.

Gao T, Shih C, Rasnitsyn AP, Xu X, Wang S, Ren D.
Curr Biol. 2013 Jul 8;23(13):1261-6.

New transitional fleas from China highlighting div... [Curr Biol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Loudmouth]

You again wish. You cannot prove life came about by natural processes.

Notice how you immediately change the subject when transitional fossils are presented to you.

Transitional fossils are not missing. They have been found.

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

You have no evidence that life evolved, but through faith.

We have the transitional fossils and DNA evidence.

It is funny that you claim one second that the lack of transitional fossils are evidence against evolution, yet when presented with those transitional fossils they no longer count as evidence.

I told you months ago about the weakness and limitations of Naturalism but you appear to be slow to learn or stubborn to see your lack of evidence foundation dilemma.

.

What you told me is as false as your claims of there not being transitional fossils.

 

[46AND2]

You wish qoutes from Darwin said other. And wish the fossil record showed other. Are you intelligent enough to see the "missing" foundation Evolutionists try to stand on?

Naturalism is based on faith. Naturalists walk by faith. Have you not learned these things yet?

.

Darwin's quotes DO say otherwise, when quoted in full, (that's what makes it a quote mine) as has been shown to you repeatedly. The fact that you still post them is disgusting.

 

[Loudmouth]

A new transitional hemichordate found in Cambrian strata:

"Here we describe an enteropneust, Spartobranchus tenuis (Walcott, 1911), from the Middle Cambrian-period (Series 3, Stage 5) Burgess Shale. It is remarkably similar to the extant harrimaniids, but differs from all known enteropneusts in that it is associated with a fibrous tube that is sometimes branched. We suggest that this is the precursor of the pterobranch periderm, and supports the hypothesis that pterobranchs are miniaturized and derived from an enteropneust-like worm. It also shows that the periderm was acquired before size reduction and acquisition of feeding tentacles, and that coloniality emerged through aggregation of individuals, perhaps similar to the Cambrian rhabdopleurid Fasciculitubus. The presence of both enteropneusts and pterobranchs in Middle Cambrian strata, suggests that hemichordates originated at the onset of the Cambrian explosion."
Tubicolous enteropneusts from the Cambrian period. [Nature. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Loudmouth]

A new transitional snake fossil:

Nature. 2012 Aug 9;488(7410):205-8. doi: 10.1038/nature11227.

A transitional snake from the Late Cretaceous period of North America.

Longrich NR, Bhullar BA, Gauthier JA.


Source

Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109, USA. nicholas.longrich@yale.edu


Abstract


Snakes are the most diverse group of lizards, but their origins and early evolution remain poorly understood owing to a lack of transitional forms. Several major issues remain outstanding, such as whether snakes originated in a marine or terrestrial environment and how their unique feeding mechanism evolved. The Cretaceous Coniophis precedens was among the first Mesozoic snakes discovered, but until now only an isolated vertebra has been described and it has therefore been overlooked in discussions of snake evolution. Here we report on previously undescribed material from this ancient snake, including the maxilla, dentary and additional vertebrae. Coniophis is not an anilioid as previously thought a revised phylogenetic analysis of Ophidia shows that it instead represents the most primitive known snake. Accordingly, its morphology and ecology are critical to understanding snake evolution. Coniophis occurs in a continental floodplain environment, consistent with a terrestrial rather than a marine origin; furthermore, its small size and reduced neural spines indicate fossorial habits, suggesting that snakes evolved from burrowing lizards. The skull is intermediate between that of lizards and snakes. Hooked teeth and an intramandibular joint indicate that Coniophis fed on relatively large, soft-bodied prey. However, the maxilla is firmly united with the skull, indicating an akinetic rostrum. Coniophis therefore represents a transitional snake, combining a snake-like body and a lizard-like head. Subsequent to the evolution of a serpentine body and carnivory, snakes evolved a highly specialized, kinetic skull, which was followed by a major adaptive radiation in the Early Cretaceous period. This pattern suggests that the kinetic skull was a key innovation that permitted the diversification of snakes.

A transitional snake from the Late Cretaceous period ... [Nature. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Loudmouth]

Newly found transitional earwig:

"This new family, characterized by an unexpected combination of primitive and derived characters, is bridging the missing link between suborders of Archidermaptera and Eodermaptera."

Transitional fossil earwigs - a missing link in Dermaptera evolution

 

[Loudmouth]

Transitional pterosaurs and birds:

"The Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota in China has produced numerous well preserved fossils of feathered theropods and early birds. Recent discoveries of feathered dinosaurs, as well as transitional pterosaurs and a sexually mature individual of Darwinopterus preserved together with an egg from the Daohugou Biota of an earlier age than the Jehol Biota, in northeastern China, have greatly enriched our knowledge of the transition from dinosaurs to birds and primitive to derived pterosaurs."
Timing of the earliest known feathered dinosaurs and transitional pterosaurs older than the Jehol Biota

 

[gungasnake]

The thing which drove ME away from evolution was evidence and logic. I was, after all, a math major, and if something can't survive a close inspection for logic, it doesn't really work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You again wish. You cannot prove life came about by natural processes. Nor can nnaturalistic scientists make any form of life, regardless the materials and conditions he has at his disposal.

You have no origin of life foundation to stand on, but through faith. The same for the process of Evolution, there is no evidence in the millions of fossils. You have no evidence that life evolved, but through faith.

I told you months ago about the weakness and limitations of Naturalism but you appear to be slow to learn or stubborn to see your lack of evidence foundation dilemma.

.

We don't have to "prove" anything. All we have to do is to show that the evidence supports the theory.

Once again, if you were right you should be able to find some scientific evidence that supports your claims. Creation "scientists" don't believe that there is any existing evidence for creationism. This is shown by their actions. To have the support of scientific evidence you first have to write a hypothesis or theory that uses that evidence. Until you have a hypothesis or theory you cannot have by definition the support of scientific evidence.

Why doesn't your side believe that the evidence supports them?

 

[bhsmte]

The thing which drove ME away from evolution was evidence and logic. I was, after all, a math major, and if something can't survive a close inspection for logic, it doesn't really work.

Well, that would put you in the 1% minority who live and breath this topic, who rely on evidence and logic.

Congratulations!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing which drove ME away from evolution was evidence and logic. I was, after all, a math major, and if something can't survive a close inspection for logic, it doesn't really work.

That is true. The problem is that you have not raised one logical argument against evolution. The best you can do is to raise a strawman or two. If you took a logic class they should have taught you what a strawman is.

And your choice is strange considering evidence too. There is no scientific evidence for creationism by definition. There are mountains of evidence that support evolution. And that is literally mountains of evidence.

 

[Heissonear]

Darwin's quotes DO say otherwise, when quoted in full, (that's what makes it a quote mine) as has been shown to you repeatedly. The fact that you still post them is disgusting.

Another attempt falls short.

Mere words presented to say "Darwin did not say what he said".

As Darwin points out in his famous book, there should be "innumerable" intermediate links in each stratum. But upon millions and millions of fossils that have been found there is zero intermediate links. Zero.

You try to explain this away. It's because of your faith in Naturalism.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another attempt falls short.

Mere words presented to say "Darwin did not say what he said".

As Darwin points out in his famous book, there should be "innumerable" intermediate links in each stratum. But upon millions and millions of fossils that have been found there is zero intermediate links. Zero.

You try to explain this away. It's because of your faith in Naturalism.

.

Wrong, we have shown you innumerable links.

They exist.

You need to get into a shorter river.

And of course Ninth Commandment warning.

 

[Heissonear]

The problem is that you have not raised one logical argument against evolution. The best you can do is to raise a strawman or two. If you took a logic class they should have taught you what a strawman is.

And your choice is strange considering evidence too. There is no scientific evidence for creationism by definition. There are mountains of evidence that support evolution. And that is literally mountains of evidence.

So says a poster who presents continuous error - sure there is "mountains" of evidence for Evolution. The only problem is that the fossil record shows no sign of Evolution.

Why do you not understand what Darwin knew about missing intermediate links in every stratum?

.

 

[46AND2]

Another attempt falls short.

Mere words presented to say "Darwin did not say what he said".

As Darwin points out in his famous book, there should be "innumerable" intermediate links in each stratum. But upon millions and millions of fossils that have been found there is zero intermediate links. Zero.

You try to explain this away. It's because of your faith in Naturalism.

.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

And what does the rest of this quote say? You omit the answer he gives. As is his style, he posits a question, then provides the answer. It is incredibly dishonest to quote only the question and claim that is Darwin's position.

.....the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”

Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323.

Again, a rhetorical question, for which you omitted the answer he gives.

 

[Paulos23]

The thing which drove ME away from evolution was evidence and logic. I was, after all, a math major, and if something can't survive a close inspection for logic, it doesn't really work.

Reading your posts I thought you had something, every once in a while someone comes up with something new. But, as with all things, over time you have shown you stop short in looking for evidence once you find what you like. You math and and logic don't really pan out for me.

Disproving evolution doesn't make any other theory true.

 

[46AND2]

So says a poster who presents continuous error - sure there is "mountains" of evidence for Evolution. The only problem is that the fossil record shows no sign of Evolution.

Why do you not understand what Darwin knew about missing intermediate links in every stratum?

.

Why do you insist on the perfect intermediate record? Darwin explained why we don't have a daisy-chain link through all species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So says a poster who presents continuous error - sure there is "mountains" of evidence for Evolution. The only problem is that the fossil record shows no sign of Evolution.

Why do you not understand what Darwin knew about missing intermediate links in every stratum?

.

You can repeat that statement as many times as you want but the facts are that the fossil record supports evolution and only evolution is known even by creation "scientists".

Don't ask me ask them. But don't trust what they say, trust their actions. As the saying goes actions speak louder than words and they have not acted as if they had any support at all.

I will remind you that without a scientific hypothesis or theory by definition you cannot claim that any scientific evidence supports you.

After an abysmal failure rate creationists finally learned not to present scientific hypotheses or theorems.

 

[Strathos]

Astounding. One of the (many) things that drove me away from YEC is this kind of dishonesty. Not only the quote mines themselves, but the failure of their proponents to admit them when shown to be mined.

Indeed. Dishonest creationist tactics like this do more to drive people away from Christ than to bring them to Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I will repeat so Heissonear might understand.

All fossils found to date fit the evolutionary paradigm. In fact is you found one that didn't you would have a very strong argument against evolution. That means our explanation works for every fossil, that is millions or more likely billions of fossils when you start counting all of the microscopic ones that all support the theory of evolution and not one supports creationism.

In fact you can find mountains that are made of fossiliferous limestone, all of which support the theory of evolution, and not supporting creationism.

So no support for the creationist side, more than enough supporting evolution.