Transitional Fossil Questions

[Critias]

Thanks for responding Critias. I'm asking questions not to shoot you down, but so that we can both look into things more and learn a bit.
So if I find fossils that appear to be in a transitional state between a whale and a land mammal you would accept that?

You can shoot me down, or whatever you feel necessary to do. I'm not that concerned with how you treat me, but rather about how I treat you. This debate isn't that important to me these days. You have your beliefs and I have mine. God is the only one who changes hearts, whether yours or mine.

If you found a fossil and told me it was transitional, I'd question it just as much as you'd question something I found and said it is proof of creation (if that happened).

I feel that scientists are using a good deal of guessing when it comes to stating that fossil X is a transitional fossil.

Of course we don't know every single organism to have lived but we have found fossils of many different extinct species. The transitions would be between species we know about, not something made up.

Right there is an assumption: a transitional fossil that is found is between a two species we know about. Is this always assumed to be true?

Transitional forms are still species. And everything we see in nature is still evolving.

I never thought that transitional forms were not species.

I have yet to see anything that is currently evolving. Perhaps I am blind and/or biased.

So do you reject other scientific theories or is evolution the only one you reject soley on personal beliefs? Do you reject atomic theory or the theory of relativity? Or are you familiar with those enough that you could accept them?

You really aren't putting Atomic theory and Relativity in the same space as Evolution are you?

thanks again

No problem. I doubt I'll be here in a few days. This forum has not change in 3 years - still the same thing, day in, day out. It's rather boring - no offense. I've just done this before only to get no where, with anyone. It's rather pointless.

 

[gluadys]

I never thought that transitional forms were not species.

I have yet to see anything that is currently evolving. Perhaps I am blind and/or biased.

Maybe misinformed. Are you expecting to see a process of evolution in an individual fossil? Or do you understand enough about evolution to know why that would never happen?

You really aren't putting Atomic theory and Relativity in the same space as Evolution are you?

Sure. Why not?

 

[Critias]

Maybe misinformed. Are you expecting to see a process of evolution in an individual fossil? Or do you understand enough about evolution to know why that would never happen?

I was responding to "And everything we see in nature is still evolving."

Sure. Why not?

Perhaps because we can actually observe those two theories actually happening where we cannot observe something actually evolving?

 

[gluadys]

I was responding to "And everything we see in nature is still evolving."

And it is.

Perhaps because we can actually observe those two theories actually happening where we cannot observe something actually evolving?

Evolution is observed. But perhaps you do not see it because you do not know what to look at or look for. For example, you say we cannot observe "something" actually evolving.

What would the "something" be? Do you think we should be able to point out a particular frog or butterfly or rose that is changing in front of our eyes? Some one organism that is half one thing and half another?

 

[Critias]

And it is.



Evolution is observed. But perhaps you do not see it because you do not know what to look at or look for. For example, you say we cannot observe "something" actually evolving.

What would the "something" be? Do you think we should be able to point out a particular frog or butterfly or rose that is changing in front of our eyes? Some one organism that is half one thing and half another?

What animal example do you have that is currently in the state of evolution from one species to another?

 

[gluadys]

What animal example do you have that is currently in the state of evolution from one species to another?

That's easy. They all are.

But would you answer my question please? What is the "something" you expect to see as evidence that evolution is happening? Do you expect a biologist to be able to point to a specific individual frog or butterfly or rose and say---"that's the one that's evolving"?

If that is not what you expect to see, what is it that you do expect? What would count as evidence of evolution for you?

 

[Critias]

That's easy. They all are.

But would you answer my question please? What is the "something" you expect to see as evidence that evolution is happening? Do you expect a biologist to be able to point to a specific individual frog or butterfly or rose and say---"that's the one that's evolving"?

If that is not what you expect to see, what is it that you do expect? What would count as evidence of evolution for you?

I'd expect to see an animal, of some sorts, evolving.

I guess I just don't see a dog, cat, elephant, etc evolving.

 

[Atlantians]

nice o fyou to take a bit of what i said and then make such a remark.

You are welcome.

Science cannot prove the existence of the evolutionary process.

Science can not prove anything.

Science is not a person.

People can prove things through the scientific method however.

It declares or infers or conjextures that there is such a process, coupled with natural selectionbut at no time do their experiments show that such a process exists.

Micr-Evolution is certainly observed.

Macro-Evolution is an inferrence thereof, helped by the existence of apparent progression of fossiles at seperate periods of time.

it is as silent & invisible as nothing yet intelligent men would rather believe in that than God, whom we know is not silent, acts in creation, answers prayers, heals today, directs people's lives and so on.

Eh?

i have yet to meet someone on this board and a few others who actually uses discernment when it comes to science and can differentiate between what is of God and what is not. they all assume that what secular science has proposed is correct and over rules the Bible.

Secular science?

Science is nuetral, not secular.
Science is a Method and Construct, a framework.
Nothing more.

Scientists are what you are thinking of.

 

[archaeologist]

Micr-Evolution is certainly observed

no, it is inferred and credited but there is no proof that micro-evolution exists or is responsible.

Science is nuetral, not secular.
Science is a Method and Construct, a framework.
Nothing more

with God nothing is neutral, such an idea that it is ,is just people fooling themselves.

 

[brightmorningstar]

How would one classify a fossilised tadpole and a fossilised frog, if one had never seen a tadpole change into a frog? I wonder if they would be defined as the same species or evolution from one species to another?

No if its mutation I might expect to see an evolution of the species if its over time I would expect to see mostly or at least a profusion of transitional fossils, yet we dont. When I was a student of geology I first had serious doubts about evolution of the species, those doubts continued even before I became a Christian.

 

[Mallon]

How would one classify a fossilised tadpole and a fossilised frog, if one had never seen a tadpole change into a frog? I wonder if they would be defined as the same species or evolution from one species to another?

That's not an unwarranted question. Before things like individual/sexual/ontogenetic variation were considered, palaeontologists would often name species at the drop of a hat, based on anatomical differences alone. There was once a series of species named after an ontogenetic cline of fossil branchiosaurid amphibians. Species A was named after the larval morphology; Species B was named after the adult morphology. We have long since learned not to make the same mistakes, however.

No if its mutation I might expect to see an evolution of the species if its over time I would expect to see mostly or at least a profusion of transitional fossils, yet we dont. When I was a student of geology I first had serious doubts about evolution of the species, those doubts continued even before I became a Christian.

All I can say in answer to this is that we do see transitional species everywhere in the fossil record. I would be happy to discuss some specific examples, if you like. There will be a must-have book out later this year, edited by my supervisor, on this very subject (called Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution).

 

[gluadys]

I'd expect to see an animal, of some sorts, evolving.

I guess I just don't see a dog, cat, elephant, etc evolving.

Well, scientists do see them evolving. And it comes down to what evidence counts as "seeing evolution". You haven't yet articulated what it means to you to "see a dog, cat, elephant, etc. evolving."

So I am asking for the third time, and I really want you to try and wrap your head around this question and answer it directly.

When you say "I don't see a dog evolving", are you expecting that somewhere someone should be able to point to one of the millions of dogs in the world and say "That dog is evolving and we know it is because ....."

In general are you expecting evolution to show up in individual dogs, cats, elephants, whatever that are now only partially dogs and partially something else? partially cats and partially something else?

Is that the way you picture evolution working?

Don't be afraid of the answer one way or another. Because this is how many people do think evolution works. And if you have a different concept, probably there are a lot of people who hold that concept too.

 

[Chamale]

Much of the simplification of evolution presents the issue wrongly. Some books say something along the lines of, "Evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years". A better description would be, "Evolution is a process that happens whenever there is an ecological niche that is empty. This only happens every few million years, but once it does happen, live evolves to fit it within a few thousand years". An often-cited example of impossible transitions is how Ambulocetus evolved into Basillosaurus in "just" 10 million years. It would take about 10,000 years for a group of Abulocetus to evolve to the size of a Basillosaurus, and another 10,000 for the legs to evolve into flippers. Once the pressure was on, evolution was quite quick. This does not mean the universe is 20,000 years. Reliable methods of radiocarbon dating have put these fossils at differing several million years, and fish fossils show that the evolution of Ambulocetus to a larger, swifter form happened just as the fish evolved similarly.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Most interesting that you should raise the C-14 dating process. I believe that there is someone who will have something to say about that soon.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Bump: research input awaited.

 

[Atlantians]

no, it is inferred and credited but there is no proof that micro-evolution exists or is responsible.

Micro-Evolution:
Wolf-Dog

http://fohn.net/wolf-pictures-facts/gray-wolf-gaze.jpg

Cat:

with God nothing is neutral, such an idea that it is ,is just people fooling themselves.

Science is nuetral.

Science is a form of study, of research.

Research, study, these things are neither Religious or Secular.

They are nuetral.

Truth is nuetral of oppinions.

Truth is truth.

 

[Atlantians]

Much of the simplification of evolution presents the issue wrongly. Some books say something along the lines of, "Evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years". A better description would be, "Evolution is a process that happens whenever there is an ecological niche that is empty. This only happens every few million years, but once it does happen, live evolves to fit it within a few thousand years". An often-cited example of impossible transitions is how Ambulocetus evolved into Basillosaurus in "just" 10 million years. It would take about 10,000 years for a group of Abulocetus to evolve to the size of a Basillosaurus, and another 10,000 for the legs to evolve into flippers. Once the pressure was on, evolution was quite quick. This does not mean the universe is 20,000 years. Reliable methods of radiocarbon dating have put these fossils at differing several million years, and fish fossils show that the evolution of Ambulocetus to a larger, swifter form happened just as the fish evolved similarly.

Dude.

What are you talking about?

Carbon-14, for instance, has a half-life of 5730 years.
Radiocarbon dating thus becomes useless at the oldest 50,000 years or so.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

There is an oft-forgotten issue.

Scientists are - by definition - seeking knowledge and not displeased if they find that previous findings were in error. That is knowledge and to them the holy grail.

 

[Servant222]

Stop being studiously stupid. They are questions asked in good faith and sincerity. Either you have an answer or you don't. If you have one, then just answer the question and stop the too-smart-by-half response. If you don't, then either go to another thread or say that you don't know and would like someone else to answer so that you can learn something.

Sigh. This is the type of post that I don't think is appropriate on a Christian Forum.

What purpose does it serve but to cause anger and discord?

Any chance you would consider an edit?

Thanks.

 

[USincognito]

Most interesting that you should raise the C-14 dating process. I believe that there is someone who will have something to say about that soon.

Dude.

What are you talking about?

Carbon-14, for instance, has a half-life of 5730 years.
Radiocarbon dating thus becomes useless at the oldest 50,000 years or so.

This confusion of imprecise verbiage seems to occur on this topic quite frequently. I think he meant radioisotope or radiometric dating, but conflated radiocarbon dating with those broader, more proper terms.