• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Transitional Fossil Features

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by crjmurray, Jun 30, 2015.

  1. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    The only models that predict smooth, ordered differences between species across time are ones that hypothesize common descent. Models based on individual, isolated species don't predict it. Therefore, when we find it, and when we don't find anything to the contrary, it lends credibility to models that predicted it.

    In the case of human evolution, we have a smooth, ordered line of species that goes back to about the time of the common ancestor with chimpanzees. That all of them are independent of one another is a possibility, but that they existed at all (along with the order in which they existed in history) was predicted by evolution before we'd even dug up their bones. That's a strong statement.
     
  2. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +962
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    That's just it - only your claimed transitional fossils partake in this spotty and incomplete record. The species themselves you are trying to link, whether named correctly or not are found in multitudes. That you simply mistake another breed of salamander as a transitional is a problem evolutionist's need to learn to deal with.


    None, because breed mates with breed and produces a new breed within the species. Once again - there are no missing transitional forms between an Asian and African and an Afro-Asian.
     
  3. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    If you're looking for transitions that include non-functional features, evolution predicts they don't exist. Finding something of that type would cause evolution to suffer as a theory. Evolution predicts that any change that appears has to confer a net-neutral or better survivability rate in order to survive. Thus, the survival of a thing with a partially developed feature that does not, itself, confer a benefit would undermine evolution.
     
  4. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    All fossils do.

    Where did the breeds come from?


    Where did the breeds come from to produce the new breeds?
     
  5. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    I think you, too, are talking about something that evolution predicts does not exist.
     
  6. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +962
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    You should know that answer. They are interbreeding on such a massive scale two are fusing into one again.

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448743?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    They came from the mainland, settled on the islands - and immediately began interbreeding. Don't try to play coy or pretend you don't know. They have been interbreeding from the get-go as DNA tests have shown.
     
  7. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +962
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    Of course I am, because evolution is false. There is no species evolving through mutation into another species. Just breed mating with breed producing new breeds, just as we observe in nature.
     
  8. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    How am I supposed to know if you don't supply references?

    Horses and donkey's don't produce fertile offspring. There is no gene flow between the two populations. Are they separate species by your definition?

    How did we get huskies and wolves if we started with just wolves? What produced the two breeds?
     
  9. PapaZoom

    PapaZoom Well-Known Member

    +4,381
    Baptist
    Private
    I can't help buy wonder if it's spotty and incomplete because transitional forms never existed in the first place. In the Cambrian strata we have fully developed body plans but in pre-Cambrian we have to precursors to those body plans. That's just odd to me. Maybe we don't have precursors because they never existed in the first place.

    You have species with light sensitive areas and then species with fully developed eyes. Where are the multitude of transitions from light sensitive to fully developed?

    I do find the fossil record interesting and think there is more to it than I understand at the moment. But there's always two sides to every story and even Tiktaalik is disputed as a fish with wrists (if I have that right).
     
  10. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I wouldn't need to.

    There is no such thing as transitionals.

    Not between genera anyway.
     
  11. PapaZoom

    PapaZoom Well-Known Member

    +4,381
    Baptist
    Private
    That explanation itself seems to undermine the evolutionary development of the eye.
     
  12. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    Well, then, we should probably talk about evolution instead of this other thing. If evolution predicts it doesn't exist, and we haven't found it, then that sounds pretty good for evolution. Right?
     
  13. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    Okay, good! So, as it turns out, the theory of evolution means different things depending on whether you are reading a scientific source or a creationist source. The creationist version of evolution is contrary to the science version of evolution. What you are looking for (partial -- not conferring benefits) is predicted by the creationist version of evolution but actually contradicts the science version of evolution.

    Evolution, as proposed by scientists, means the changes are all gradual (just like in the creationist version), but it also says that each change is independently beneficial. So, as to the eye, each change that is made has to be justified as an improvement (in the sense that it makes organisms that have it more likely to pass on their genes) over what was there, previously. The trivial light-sensitive dot that doesn't give an image is beneficial over not having the dot. After that, a change that makes the dot concave provides the benefit of directionality. And so on.

    Scientific evolution requires each change to be independently justifiable in terms of the likelihood of passing on the gene. Therefore, if there is a partially-formed feature that isn't functional, that would support what creationist sources call the theory of evolution, but would actually undermine the real theory of evolution.
     
  14. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    Any of the early horses would be an example of transitional between species (such as Mesohippus), whereas Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik would be examples of transitional between classes.
    http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
    http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
     
  15. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    The horse series shows this very well:
    http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

    The chance of finding a particular species, especially one not long lasting or wide ranging is very rare.
     
  16. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
  17. lasthero

    lasthero Newbie

    +2,674
    Seeker
    And a neck.
     
  18. lasthero

    lasthero Newbie

    +2,674
    Seeker


    I'd very much like to know where and how you acquired that number, Justa. I strongly suspect you just made it up, so I won't be too disappointed if you don't answer, but it would be nice. It's something I've always been curious about.
     
  19. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    It is incomplete for single species. For some species, we only have one fossil that represents that entire species. Do you really think that species only ever had one individual in it?

    We could use passenger pigeons as another example. That species was once so numerous that the flocks stretched for multiple miles, and they would blot out the sun. They numbered in the billions. Since then, we hunted them to extinction. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils we have? Just a handful, and that is from a recent species that numbered in the billions, perhaps trillions of individuals over the centuries.

    How do you determine if a fossil has a fully developed body plan? Until you explain that, it is a meaningless term.

    Until you define what features a fossil needs in order to be a precursor it is a meaningless term. For example, what features does a precursor for modern humans need?

    The light sensitive eyespot is a transition between no eye and the more complex eyes we see in modern animals. If you won't accept that rather obvious transition, why would you accept the others? If a light sensitive eye is a "fully developed body plan", then it seems that the term really doesn't mean anything.

    [quoet]I do find the fossil record interesting and think there is more to it than I understand at the moment. But there's always two sides to every story and even Tiktaalik is disputed as a fish with wrists (if I have that right).[/QUOTE]

    A fish with wrists is exactly what a transitional should be.
     
  20. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +962
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    No you don't. You have smooth common ordered differences back to H. Erectus, then the imaginary gap game and missing transitions come into the game. It's already been shown you got half of what you thought wrong and had your entire claimed lineage thrown into disarray. The problem is evolutionist's never want to consider the evidence that goes against their theory.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

    Excuse me, but you got that wrong too. Models based upon individual, isolated species predicts exactly what we see. The gradual variation between breeds of the same species. You know, when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian. Or when a Husky mates with a Mastiff and produces a Chinook. All within their individual isolated species. This is all you have ever observed, until we play the incorrectly misidentify things in the fossil record as separate species instead of breeds and begin the imaginary missing transitional game. I require no imaginary missing fossils. I just simply have to apply what we observe - breed mating with breed producing new breeds.

    I need not pretend these are separate species, and claim non-existent transitional forms:

    [​IMG]

    But just accept those dinosaur are just different breeds of the same species per observations and common sense.

    [​IMG]

    They are no more separate species than dog breeds are separate species or cat breeds are separate species. There is no need at all to pretend otherwise - and direct empirical evidence that backs up breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species.

    Evolutionists have nothing but a few bones of creatures never once observed in life - in which they classify them incorrectly based upon non-empirical pre-concieved beliefs, while ignoring how we know life propagates in the here and now. And then refuse to apply what we observe to the fossil record, or birds that clearly interbreed and produce fertile offspring and so are of one species. No difference between those finches or dogs or cats - except they classified them incorrectly based upon pre-concieved beliefs before they ever bothered to study them.
     
Loading...