transitional species

[GBTWC]

Do we have any current living examples of transitional species that show macro evolution to be true?
If so how does that affect your faith does it lessen the possibility of us being created in gods image?

 

[CabVet]

Do we have any current living examples of transitional species that show macro evolution to be true?
If so how does that affect your faith does it lessen the possibility of us being created in gods image?

There are no living "transitional species". The term is used for extinct ancestors that have characters of two (or more) living species. But if you are looking for living species that have characteristics of two other living species, there are literally hundreds.

 

[GBTWC]

Can those species B honestly called transitional I've had people tell me that we are transitional species do they show macro evolution or just adaptation.
Like in other words how long have the ones such as the platypus existed are they truly changing into another species or is that just how they have been for thousands of years?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can those species B honestly called transitional I've had people tell me that we are transitional species do they show macro evolution or just adaptation.
Like in other words how long have the ones such as the platypus existed are they truly changing into another species or is that just how they have been for thousands of years?

A platypus is considered a transitional species because it has a mixture of characteristics from reptiles and placental mammals. The platypus lays eggs like reptiles and has a very primitive lactation system. However, the platypus has also evolved features that are specific to its ancestors that are not shared with reptiles and placental mammals.

Also, all species are evolving. The process never stops.

 

[The Engineer]

Do we have any current living examples of transitional species

Others have mentioned it already: You can regard every living species as a transitional species.

that show macro evolution to be true?

Macroevolution and microevolution are driven by the same processes. You can't believe in one of them while denying the others existence. Macroevolution is simply microevolution that results in the affected individuals becoming another species. As far as I know, this can happen if the number of chromosomes of a species changes after a mutation, for example. It is believed that something similar happened to the Cope's Gray Tree Frog: A group of larvae was born with four sets of chromosomes instead of two. The Gray Tree Frogs, which evolved from this larvae, are nearly identical to the Cope's Gray Tree Frogs, except for the fact that they can't reproduce with the Gray Tree Frogs.
I don't know if macroevolution was ever actually observed, however. You should ask a biologist for that.

 

[Jamin4422]

Do we have any current living examples of transitional species that show macro evolution to be true?

The evidence better supports Creationism. But you can not teach Creationism in the public school system. So that leaves us with Evolution as the best theory available to teach the material to the students.

 

[Jamin4422]

Macroevolution and microevolution are driven by the same processes. You can't believe in one of them while denying the others existence.

Of course you can deny macro. You have no proof to back up your theory. That is what Science is all about. Offering up proof for your hypotheses. As it stands there is no proof for Macro and it has not been for lack of trying. Creationism better supports the evidence that we have. We have explosions and extinctions and very little change takes place in a species between the time it shows up in the fossil record and the time it goes extinct.

I don't know if macroevolution was ever actually observed, however.

Exactly, it has never been observed. Look at fruit flies because they have very short generations. You start out with a fruit fly, you end up with a fruit fly. No evolution has taken place. WE do learn a LOT along the way. For one thing we can tamper with the DNA, we can insert DNA into the fruit fly. I never would have believed that if they had not shown it in the lab. Just like I never would have accepted or believed cloning if they did not have the evidence to back up their claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence better supports Creationism.

How so?

But you can not teach Creationism in the public school system. So that leaves us with Evolution as the best theory available to teach the material to the students.

Scientists themselves are not restricted as to the theories that they can use in their research. I am unaware of a single biologist who is using either creationism or intelligent design as the basis for a scientific research program. Instead, there are hundreds of thousands of biologists across the world and from every faith using the theory of evolution to produce top quality research. We don't teach creationism because it is useless in science. We teach theories that students will need to understand if they are going to pursue a career in the sciences.

 

[selfinflikted]

Of course you can deny macro. You have no proof to back up your theory.

But there are mountains of evidence.

That is what Science is all about. Offering up proof for your hypotheses.

Perhaps you should take another look at what science is. I think the word you're looking for is "evidence."

As it stands there is no proof for Macro and it has not been for lack of trying.

Again, there is so much evidence that supports evolution, one would have to either be living under a rock or be a liar to say there isn't any.

Creationism better supports the evidence that we have.

How, exactly, does Creationism "support" the evidence? This doesn't make sense.

Exactly, it has never been observed. Look at fruit flies because they have very short generations. You start out with a fruit fly, you end up with a fruit fly. No evolution has taken place.

This is factually incorrect.

WE do learn a LOT along the way. For one thing we can tamper with the DNA, we can insert DNA into the fruit fly. I never would have believed that if they had not shown it in the lab. Just like I never would have accepted or believed cloning if they did not have the evidence to back up their claim.

So, seeing is believing for you. That's interesting.

 

[Jamin4422]

How so?

"Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyers is the best book right now on the subject. If there is something there you would like to have a discussion on, let me know and I could study up on it so we could talk about it.

Scientists themselves are not restricted

Yes they are restricted by the courts and the so called separation of Church and State. The question going back to Thomas Jefferson is who's religion does the state support? What Creation theory will the state support. Should the state teach all of them? OEC, YEC, GAP, ID, TE and so on?

We don't teach creationism because it is useless in science.

Oh nonsense, that is not true at all. IR is a Creationist theory. Fine tuning is a Creationist theory. Creation scientists have made more then a huge contribution to our current understanding in Science. People need to look before they leap and examine the evolutionists anti creationist propaganda before they buy into it.

 

[Jamin4422]

But there are mountains of evidence.

Yes there is a mountain of evidence. Sea shells on top of the mountain to be more exact. I commend Evolutionists for all the hard work they have done to gather all of the evidence. Only Creationism better explains the evidence. I can understand them wanting to use all the evidence to support their theory, but it just does not work out that way.

How, exactly, does Creationism "support" the evidence?

Again Meyers does a good job of dealing with this. He does not need my help. It is a 600 page book. If there is something in there you want to talk about then let me know and I will study up on it and we can talk about it. Actually, he deals more with the ID part of Creationism. But this is as good of a start as any. ID seems to be the part of Creationism that most people have a problem with. Even Frances Collins who gave us "The language of God" is critical of ID.

 

[selfinflikted]

"Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyers is the best book right now on the subject. If there is something there you would like to have a discussion on, let me know and I could study up on it so we could talk about it.

Yes they are restricted by the courts and the so called separation of Church and State. The question going back to Thomas Jefferson is who's religion does the state support? What Creation theory will the state support. Should the state teach all of them? OEC, YEC, GAP, ID, TE and so on?

Oh nonsense, that is not true at all. IR is a Creationist theory. Fine tuning is a Creationist theory. Creation scientists have made more then a huge contribution to our current understanding in Science. People need to look before they leap and examine the evolutionists anti creationist propaganda before they buy into it.

"Creationist Theory" is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? To have a theory, one must have evidence and data. For Creationism, there is none.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yes there is a mountain of evidence. Sea shells on top of the mountain to be more exact.

And next, I suppose, you will say that they got there after being deposited from the Noachian Flood?

Again Meyers does a good job of dealing with this. He does not need my help. It is a 600 page book. If there is something in there you want to talk about then let me know and I will study up on it and we can talk about it. Actually, he deals more with the ID part of Creationism. But this is as good of a start as any. ID seems to be the part of Creationism that most people have a problem with. Even Frances Collins who gave us "The language of God" is critical of ID.

Why on earth would I read a 600 page Creationist book?

 

[KimberlyAA]

Some may argue that the platypus is one such transition. However

Encyclopaedia Britannica says that ‘little is known of their ancestry’ and: ‘Most authorities believe the order Monotremata originated from a line of mammal-like reptiles different from that which gave rise to the other mammals. Nonetheless monotremes may well represent features of anatomy and development that characterized the earliest mainstream mammals.’

5 Scientists initially considered the platypus to be ‘primitive’, but then they discovered the incredibly complex electrolocation techniques the animal uses to find food. To evolutionists this made it a ‘highly evolved animal and not a primitive transition between reptiles and mammals.’6 The platypus, along with its fellow monotreme, the echidna, was believed to have evolved in isolation when the land mass that would become Australia (Gondwana) broke away from the other continents supposedly 225 million years ago.7 This idea of evolution in isolation followed the theory of Darwin, whose affinity for evolution may also have been influenced by his early studies of the platypus during his time on The Beagle.8 However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia—threw that theory upside down.9 (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive.10 In reality, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that the platypus was ever anything other than a platypus. It is not a living ‘transitional’ form. It is a truly unique creature, and one that continues to baffle those who insist on making it fit into an evolutionary tree.

I'm quite sure, if it had not been found living today they would assume it's fossils were some intermediate between a mammal and reptile to fit it into their paradigm.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyers is the best book right now on the subject. If there is something there you would like to have a discussion on, let me know and I could study up on it so we could talk about it.

I am asking you how creationism explains the data better. Perhaps you could pull out the strongest evidence and start a thread on it, or you could find where Meyers explains how creationism better explains the pattern of shared and derived features found in living and fossil species. Why do we see transitionals between reptiles and mammals, but no transitionals between birds and mammals? How does Meyers explain this? How does Meyers explain the hominid transitionals that have a mixture of human and basal ape features?

Yes they are restricted by the courts and the so called separation of Church and State.

The restrictions are there because creationism fails to pass the Lemon test. It has no secular use at all. If it did have a secular use then it would pass the Lemon test and could be taught. You can read up on the Lemon test here:

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question going back to Thomas Jefferson is who's religion does the state support? What Creation theory will the state support. Should the state teach all of them? OEC, YEC, GAP, ID, TE and so on?

If creationism was science it would be science. It isn't. It is religious dogma. That is why it can not be taught.

Oh nonsense, that is not true at all. IR is a Creationist theory. Fine tuning is a Creationist theory. Creation scientists have made more then a huge contribution to our current understanding in Science. People need to look before they leap and examine the evolutionists anti creationist propaganda before they buy into it.

I would love it if you started a thread demonstrating how fine tuning is used in scientific research and how IR (do you mean IC?) is used in scientific research. Out of respect fo the OP I would like to keep this on topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some may argue that the platypus is one such transition. However I'm quite sure, if it had not been found living today they would assume it's fossils were some intermediate between a mammal and reptile to fit it into their paradigm.

The platypus is transitional. Period. It has a mixture of features from reptiles and placental mammals. Finding the platypus alive today does not rule it out as a transitional. It still has those mixture of features.

You may be making the mistake of conflating transitional and ancestral. They are not the same thing. A transitional is not necessarily ancestral. Also, a lineage can and does evolve features that are specific to that lineage, but they can still carry the transitional features found in the common ancestor. Such is the case with the platypus. As Darwin put it:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Origin of Species

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course you can deny macro. You have no proof to back up your theory. That is what Science is all about. Offering up proof for your hypotheses.

We have that proof:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Creationism better supports the evidence that we have.

How does creationism better explain transitional fossils?

Exactly, it has never been observed. Look at fruit flies because they have very short generations. You start out with a fruit fly, you end up with a fruit fly. No evolution has taken place.

It would appear that you are using the creationist method of "if I can call them by the same name then no macroevolution". Let's see how that works for you.

Humans and chimps are apes, as was our common ancestor. They start out as apes and end as apes. No evolution, according to you.

Humans and bears are mammals, as was our common ancestor. They start out as mammals and end as mammals. No evolution, according to you.

Doesn't look to good for you so far. I could keep going. Fish and humans are vertebrates, as was their common ancestor . . .

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes there is a mountain of evidence. Sea shells on top of the mountain to be more exact.

The sea shells are not on top of the mountain. They are IN the mountain. They make up the actual rocks of the mountain. How does a flood do that? It doesn't.

Only Creationism better explains the evidence.

I keep seeing creationists claim this, but they never get around to explaining the evidence.

Again Meyers does a good job of dealing with this. He does not need my help. It is a 600 page book. If there is something in there you want to talk about then let me know and I will study up on it and we can talk about it. Actually, he deals more with the ID part of Creationism. But this is as good of a start as any. ID seems to be the part of Creationism that most people have a problem with. Even Frances Collins who gave us "The language of God" is critical of ID.

It is the logical fallacies that we have a problem with, and ID is rife with them. Their entire argument is based on the false dichotomy of "if not evolution, then ID". They think that attacks on evolution is the same as an ID explanation. It isn't. They have no explanation, so all they can do is attack people who do have explanations.

 

[The Engineer]

The evidence better supports Creationism.

It doesn't.

Of course you can deny macro. You have no proof to back up your theory.

Macroevolution is not a separate theory, in case you didn't notice.

Fine tuning is a Creationist theory.

Fine tuning is not a theory, it's a fallacious argument for the existence of God.

Creation scientists have made more then a huge contribution to our current understanding in Science.

This may be right, but I'm sure they didn't advance biology.

I already told you that macroevolution and microevolution have the same underlying causes. If microevolution happens, then there's simply no reason why macroevolution wouldn't happen.

 

[Doveaman]

The platypus is transitional. Period.

Pointing at fixed body parts and shouting "TRANSITIONAL" doesn't make it so.

What is it transitioning from? What is it transitioning to? How do you even know it is transitioning? By pointing at fixed body parts?

How naive do you think we are?