Transitional fossils from the other 99.9% of the fossil record

[Christian Soldier]

"Well, I'm tickled. Does your wholesaler's discount include journals for scientific reporting, or must you rely wholely on Henry Morris' non-fiction non-technical writing for the lay audience?"

Glad you're tickled, it makes up for you being poorly informed and presumptuous. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't profess to know how old the earth is.

My collection includes Richard Milton, Soren Lovtrup, Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse and MANY others. Need I go on? Your presumptuousness and "cutesie" sarcasm is indicative of the average evolutionist, and you are very average. Now try to stick with presenting scientific facts rather than sarcasm.

"I have to disagree! If you have access to the referenced papers, then you have access to the raw data from which the illustrations were compiled. You have detailed technical descriptions of what is and what is not found in the actual fossils the research is compiled from, and more astoundingly still, you can discover from these papers where the fossils that were examined are housed!!"

Your disagreement is irrelevant. The drawings prove nothing. Knowing where the fossils are housed proves nothing. The trilobite sequence shows only trilobites. There are no transitionals showing trilobites evolving into different organisms. The trilobites are still just trilobites.

The plant sequences show only plants. There are no transitionals showing plants evolving into different organisms. The plants are still just plants.

Your examples, even if genuine, prove nothing but minor variation. Show me some transitionals of organisms that are half way between turning into a completely different organism. Show me a photo (sorry, no drawings accepted) of say, a half-fish and half-lizard. A half-man and half-ape. A half-mouse and half-cat. A half-bear and half-whale. I'm waiting.

Not trying to be presumptuous here, but I'm wondering if there are a few forum members who are scratching their heads about my request for a photo of a half-bear and half-whale. Permit me to elaborate.

In the early editions of Darwin's Origin of Species, Darwin theorized that bears may well have evolved into whales. He was dead serious. Absolutely hilarious. It's quite obvious that old Charlie never earned a degree in any branch of science. Of course, after Darwin's death, embarrassed evolutionists quietly omitted the bear-whale passages from the book. So don't expect to find them in modern editions. Yet another example of the many crackpot evolutionist hypotheses that got tossed down the Orwellian memory hole!

"You seem to suspect tomfoolery with the illustrations. I can certainly understand why, because 120 some odd years ago, someone did fudge their data. Do you question all chemical data so closely too? You are aware of the Millikan oil drop experiment, too, right? But having references to the published works which these illustrations derive from, you have the ability to set your mind at ease about the quality of the illustrations. In much the same way that you have the ability to set up and operate your own oil drop apparatus. I've done the latter - have you?"

I made no such charge. Even if they are completely accurate, they do absolutely nothing to prove that an organism can change into a completely different organism. At best, they prove only variation within one type of organism---which is completely consistent with Creationism.

We're not discussing chemical data and oil drop experiments. Please try to stay on topic.

"You are welcome to your own interpretation of the trilobite sequence shown in LFOD's diagram. I might suggest a closer examination, as your interpretation seems to be inconsistent with the presentation, but that is entirely at your discretion."

Explain how my interpretation is inconsistent. I claim that the sequence, at best, shows nothing more than variation within one type of organism. I only see trilobites, there's nothing that's half-trilobite and half-something else.

"You would think that since the data are fudged (obviously, since they haven't been proven accurate in this forum and most scientists are liars), they would have taken the trouble to fudge them so that even an amateur like you would have to draw conclusions of evolution from them, but perhaps their lapse can be explained."

*Yawn* Must you go on and on with your irrelevant rant? I never made the charge that the data is fudged, nor that most scientists are liars. So please stop with the evasive maneuvers. So far you've proven nothing, so you clearly must be rated as an "amateur", to borrow your insult.

"I can guarantee you won't be disappointed. Just sit on your hands until you have finished reading so you aren't distracted by the waving. (You might be interested to know that this thread is a reply to an attempt to hand-wave away the vertebrate transitional fossils)."

Oh my. A link to talk.origins. I am singularly unimpressed. Here's a link you should enjoy: Talk.Origins Deception Exposed

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Speaking of Nick's challenge, I'd like to know where he got it from...

It is quite well worded as to be unfulfilable and who ever wrote it showes more than just a passing knowlege of the fisil record. The latter would sugest that it is not an original work by Nick ans I for one would like to know who he borrowed it from.

I'll have you know I have much more than a passing knowledge of fisils.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
I know where nick got his challenge from, its a site called

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com

theres a big long post about the lack of invertebrate fossils and how evolutionists are dishonest or something

Thanks for the link, chicken. At first all I got was a "this page intentionally left blank, but when I found what you were talking about I really enjoyed it. It deserves its own thread.

 

[npetreley]

Wow, even more good stuff.

What about this miniscule and fragmentary portion of the fossil record where evolutionists have been forced to spend so much of their time & energy? We would expect that due to the subjective nature of such fossils, many examples put forth from this group by evolutionists would be either 1) disputed by other experts in the field, or 2) later disproved by new, more complete data. Indeed we have an abundance of examples of both of these expected outcomes.

Take Archaeopteryx, for example. Many evolutionists hail this fossil bird as an intermediate between dinosaur & bird. Yet a decent number of leading bird experts, who are themselves evolutionists, roundly dispute this claim.9 The alleged ape-man ‘Lucy’ is another example championed by many evolutionists, but disputed by other qualified evolutionist scientists. Renowned anatomist Lord Solly Zuckerman once scornfully denounced A. afarensis as nothing more than a “bloody ape”!10 He became so frustrated with the claims of his fellow evolutionists that he declared there was “no science to be found in this field at all”.11

There are also many examples where later fossil data overturned prior misconceptions. Consider Mesonychid, an alleged whale ancestor. In a recent debate between evolutionist Pigliucci and creationist Walter Remine, Pigliucci confidently touted Mesonychid as an ancestor to the whales.12 He was apparently unaware that two years earlier the original champion of the Mesonychid link had retracted it because additional fossils falsified the original assessment.13

For more than 20 years Ramapithecus was proudly displayed in museums across the country as man’s first direct ancestor, based entirely on jaw and teeth fragments!14 When a complete jaw was found, evolutionists where forced to admit that it was actually a relative of the orangutan! There are many more examples, such as the now debunked Nebraska man, the chordate Pikaia as a vertebrate ancestor7, the eventual removal of Neanderthal man as a human ancestor, etc.

No science to be found in this field at all? Now where have I heard that before?

 

[Joe V.]

I see you're a lot like Nick, Christian Soldier. You're attacking a widely-accepted theory without providing any scientific evidence to back-up another. Do you have any intention of doing this, or are you just going to blather and shoot holes all day. Shall I call you JJ, too? You never answered one way or the other on that one, either.

- Joe

 

[Jerry Smith]

Jerry Proves Nothing

Quite right. If you are interested in proof, perhaps some mathematics forum would be more to your liking. Here, we are discussing science, which does not admit of "proof."

Glad you're tickled, it makes up for you being poorly informed and presumptuous. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't profess to know how old the earth is.

If you're interested in learning, I will see if there are any classes that cover the subject in the Duke catalog. If you are just interested in hearing the answer though, it is about 4.5 billion years old.  

My collection includes Richard Milton, Soren Lovtrup, Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse and MANY others. Need I go on?

No, I'm duly impressed. I'm still interested if your collection includes any referreed journals (or even any advanced course textbooks?) 

Your presumptuousness

For which I apologised

and "cutesie" sarcasm is indicative of the average evolutionist, and you are very average. Now try to stick with presenting scientific facts rather than sarcasm.

Browse the threads on this board. As often as I get a chance, I do relate scientific facts as I understand them, and where possible I provide a reference to my (usually secondary) source. I do try to use trustworthy sources who cite their references to the primary literature. I believe LFOD did something very similar at the top of this thread. This is our chance to discuss it.

As to "cutesie" sarcasm: It isn't my favorite approach. Often members of this board who have a sincere interest in this debate will post questions and ask for clarification (not as a rhetorical device, but in order to gain understanding)...... Some of those people are remarkably open-minded and interesting to discuss with. I do not employ "cutesie" sarcasm there.

Other times, people come here just to spout their own "cutesie" sarcastic comments. For example,

I see. After about "90 minutes or so" in the library, you were able to analyze all the information in this massive collection of books, and you can now verify that everything presented in those books is scientific fact.

Please show us your notes. In fact, I'm sure Harvard and Oxford would like a copy also.

So, I guess I got the wrong impression. I thought maybe you were here just to exchange cutsie sarcasm. Maybe I was being presumptious again & you will prove me wrong. If so, you will find that I can be quite friendly.

Your disagreement is irrelevant. The drawings prove nothing. Knowing where the fossils are housed proves nothing.

From an earlier post:

Drawings are real easy to fake or "fudge".

I assumed that you were suspicious of the illustrations presented. If so, you have an ample opportunity to examine the data for yourself at several levels. In science, fudging data is a big "no-no." I don't know that those who presented those illustrations are willing to take the risk of losing their careers, so I don't usually suspect fudging in the illustrations unless someone more qualified than I has brought out a legitimate concern.

The trilobite sequence shows only trilobites. There are no transitionals showing trilobites evolving into different organisms. The trilobites are still just trilobites.

What do you mean by "different organisms". Is the trilobite on the right side of the progression the "same organism" as the trilobite on the left side? 

The plant sequences show only plants. There are no transitionals showing plants evolving into different organisms. The plants are still just plants.

Plantae is a taxonomic kingdom of organisms. If you think that all plants are the same organism, then you shouldn't have any problems planting poison ivy in the collard patch this fall. You might try it as a test of your hypothesis that all plants are the same kind of organism.

You could extend this logic to hominid evolution too. Are humans and chimpanzees not remarkably similar? Does it follow then that they are the same organism?  

Your examples, even if genuine, prove nothing but minor variation. Show me some transitionals of organisms that are half way between turning into a completely different organism. Show me a photo (sorry, no drawings accepted) of say, a half-fish and half-lizard. A half-man and half-ape. A half-mouse and half-cat. A half-bear and half-whale. I'm waiting.

How about a half reptile, half bird?

(that's Archaeopteryx. Read about it here, the source of the above picture.

Or, how about a half fish, half amphibian?

(that's Acanthostega. Read about it here, the source of the above picture.

 
As for a half ape, half human. I'm sure you are aware of the various hominids found in the fossil record. Now, I say that they are best described as intermediate between human and ape. But, since that explanation is a little scary for many creationists, they tend to classify these remains as either "fully human" or "mere ape" (recognizing no transition between the two.) I hope you will browse their various opinions on the matter, because I can think of no more convincing argument that the remains are transitional in nature:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Not trying to be presumptuous here, but I'm wondering if there are a few forum members who are scratching their heads about my request for a photo of a half-bear and half-whale. Permit me to elaborate.

In the early editions of Darwin's Origin of Species, Darwin theorized that bears may well have evolved into whales. He was dead serious. Absolutely hilarious. It's quite obvious that old Charlie never earned a degree in any branch of science. Of course, after Darwin's death, embarrassed evolutionists quietly omitted the bear-whale passages from the book. So don't expect to find them in modern editions. Yet another example of the many crackpot evolutionist hypotheses that got tossed down the Orwellian memory hole!

Yet, somehow, you seem to be aware of this incorret hypothesis of Darwin's. How extraordinary that it was so completely forgotten that only creationists remember it now..

Yes, Darwin's hypothesis about an ursine ancestry for whales was incorrect. Nice thing about science, that that it requires that bad hypotheses not supported by the data are thrown out. Now as to the mesochyd clade and whale ancestry, I guess you are aware of Ambulocetus and the other transitional whales, so I won't repost them.  

We're not discussing chemical data and oil drop experiments. Please try to stay on topic.

You brought up Haekel's historic fudge. I wondered if you were hyperskeptical of reports of chemical data because of Millikan's historic fudge, or if that kind of stringent skepticalism applied only to that which bears directly on evolution.

]Explain how my interpretation is inconsistent. I claim that the sequence, at best, shows nothing more than variation within one type of organism. I only see trilobites, there's nothing that's half-trilobite and half-something else.

Variation within one type of organism seems very poorly defined. Are humans and chimpanzees variations within one type of organism? If so, then your intepretation is quite consistent with the data. If not, you would need to clarify much better what qualifies as a "type" of organism. 

So far you've proven nothing, so you clearly must be rated as an "amateur", to borrow your insult.

I don't consider my position as an amateur as an insult.  I consider it an accurate evaluation of my status. Of course, if "proving" something is the only criterion for promotion from amateur to professional, then I guess we are in some pretty good company, with Einstein and others - since science does not deal with "proof".

Oh my. A link to talk.origins.

Specifically, a link to the Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ by Kathleen Hunt. I assume you were serious about wanting to see those transitionals you asked about. If not, then you should avoid that link.

I am singularly unimpressed. Here's a link you should enjoy:[/b] Talk.Origins Deception Exposed

So the link wars begin. I'm sure you are already aware, but this article is exposed here.

An attack on Talk Origins is an endeavor akin to the killing of the messenger.