transitional species

[USincognito]

You needed evolution theory to figure that out?

That's almost clever and a rare exhibition of sentience on your part. Of course I was correcting the misconceptions of someone else so your attemp failed. Kudos on the try though.

That is what we would expect in order to be convinced a dinosaur can evolve into a bird.

Really? A bird is as far removed from a theropod dinosaur as a fruit fly evolving into a spider, mushroom, or bird? No wonder you reject evolution. You have no idea what it actually entails.

So, should I try the veal or the fish?

 

[acropolis]

No it is not.

Not every species supspeciates. Many go extinct.
Not every individual reproduces successfully - that's evolutionary theory 101.
And we all know what Creationists are asking for when they ask about transitional species so pithy one liners like that are crap arguments. They're asking for transitional species as understood from the fossil record - a specimin that exhibits the characteristics of two taxa higher than species.

Please don't do that again.

My bad, every creationism debate I've had IRL uses a more colloquial definition of 'transition' since very few creationists are familiar with evolutionary taxonomy. It was pithy because these debates are utterly pointless since you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reasoning their way into in the first place. Also that pithy one-liner was taken directly from a professor of evolutionary biology addressing the issue of creationism, but again using the definition of 'transition' that a layman is likely to use.

 

[NailsII]

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?

For me, seals are a good example of a living transition in process:

Note the hind legs - they are a makeshift tail for swimming, and utterly useless on land. They cannot support their own body weight and have to shuffle and slide to move.
Yet their desire - or more accurately a need - to be on land is a throwback to their pre-aquatic days.
As is often seen with evolution, a selection pressure can produce a feature which is beneficial and detrimental at the same time. For seals, being better swimmers to avoid aquatic predation overpowers the need for them to be efficient walkers on land - but is still a handicap to them.

Many animals have adapted to aquatic environments and maintained terrestrial prowess, such as otters, but they tend to be river-dwelling so the pressures are different.

Time will tell (if anyone is around to see it that is) whether pinipeds really are evolving into a more aquatic animal, but if you see how different seals are to sea lions then I fail to see how anyone can fail to see evolution in action.

To answer your final point, I have no faith in the possibility that we are designed by a creator, let alone in the image of any particular one.

Evolution is an observable fact, it is explained by a heavily supported theory and I really don't know how anyone can exclude humans from this process. Where that leaves faith is a matter for the individual, I just can't subscribe to it myself.

 

[Jamin4422]

Science can show just well that water can't be turned into wine.

Science is neutral or it's not science. If you walk in with preconceived ideas like: "water can't be turned into wine" then your defeated before you begin.

 

[Elendur]

Time will tell (if anyone is around to see it that is) whether pinipeds really are evolving into a more aquatic animal, but if you see how different seals are to sea lions then I fail to see how anyone can see evolution in action.

I think you missed something (either that or I've misunderstood something)

 

[The Engineer]

Science is neutral or it's not science. If you walk in with preconceived ideas like: "water can't be turned into wine" then your defeated before you begin.

So far, science hasn't found a way to turn water into wine, nor does any scientific theory predict it. This has nothing to do with preconceptions.

That is what we would expect in order to be convinced a dinosaur can evolve into a bird .

I've told you why your views on evolution are completely wrong several times, and it's starting to give me headaches.

There's no reason why species shouldn't evolve into other species. There's no magic wall preventing the genotype of any species from changing too much. There. Is. No. Magic. Wall! If you can change a single gene, you can change every gene, given enough time.

Surely you jest:

Look at the pelvic and the leg bones. Birds are quite similar to dinosaurs in this regards.

Or compare the skeleton of a deinonynchus with that of an ostrich. They aren't that different.

 

[Jamin4422]

So far, science hasn't found a way to turn water into wine, nor does any scientific theory predict it. This has nothing to do with preconceptions.

R U saying that you never heard of Quantum Physics? Or R U saying that Quantum Physics is not Science? Perhaps this is to far advanced for you to grasp the significance of what John is saying. We are told that: "All things were made through Him". If you do not understand that then you may not understand the story about the wine.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Everyone has to discover truth for themselves. This is different from man's way of just learning facts that far to often become outdated. That is why we talk about turning stumbling blocks into steping stones. If this were a video game this would pretty much be the end of the game for you, because you have failed to understand or overcome the challenge set before you. Just like it is end of game for the evolutionist if you reject what you do not understand. They just do not consider that to be a valid.

 

[The Engineer]

R U saying that you never heard of Quantum Physics?

Now, can you please explain to me how you can turn water into wine using quantum physics?

This may sound strange to you, but you can't just shout QUANTUM PHYSICS to win a debate.

Or R U saying that Quantum Physics is not Science?

Sometimes, I think you don't want to be taken seriously.

I never thought I'd ever get lectured about quantum physics by a person that has to abbreviate "are you"...

 

[Jamin4422]

I never thought I'd ever get lectured about quantum physics by a person that has to abbreviate "are you"...

Of course you never did. Because you do not understand how vital humility is. You do know with Physics they say you can walk though a wall. Why did you not pick that miracle out of the Bible?

Hour 1 - Einstein's Dream - The Quantum Café (part 5/8) [HD] - YouTube

win a debate.

Actually, I go along with Dennis Waitley: The Double Win. Although I will admit that I have taken graduate level course in debate. That is not really my objective to win the debate. For me this is a way I enjoy learning.

 

[Tiberius]

Why am I feeling dizzy?

Because you don't properly understand.

If we have the progression of evolution that goes:

Species A --> Species B --> Species C

Then Species B is a transitional form between Species A and Species C.

If Species C is alive today, then Species A and Species B are extinct. They lived in the past. When Species B was alive, Species A was already extinct. And there was a transitional between Species A and Species B. Call it Species A.5 if you want.

If you pick any species that is alive today, it would fit into this model as Species C. It is currently the latest point on the evolutionary line. It can't really be called a transitional form because there is no species that comes later for it to be transitioning to (there's no Species D yet). But it's quite probably that in a million years there will be a Species D, and at that point today's Species C will be a transitional form between Species B and Species D.

 

[USincognito]

For me, seals are a good example of a transition in process:

Doubt about the whale transition is one of the most laughable not because of the robust fossil and genetic evidences, but because of all the living analogues we have to such a transition.

Polar bears - terrestrial but can swim.
Otters - terrestrial but very comfortable in the water.
Pinnipeds - aquatic, but function just fine on land.
Cetaceans - fully aquatic.

 

[NailsII]

I think you missed something (either that or I've misunderstood something)

Yeah, sorry.
That should be 'fail to see evolution in action'

Oops.

 

[Elendur]

Yeah, sorry.
That should be 'fail to see evolution in action'

Oops.

 

[Davian]

Of course you never did. Because you do not understand how vital humility is. You do know with Physics they say you can walk though a wall. Why did you not pick that miracle out of the Bible?

Actually, I go along with Dennis Waitley: The Double Win. Although I will admit that I have taken graduate level course in debate. That is not really my objective to win the debate. For me this is a way I enjoy learning.

Is that you, Jazer? How vital is humility?

 

[mathclub]

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

Actually Creationist Francis Collins is pretty much out front right now.

i didn't say scientists don't or can't believe in god.

I was saying that any actual scientific work that could show evolution to be false and/or show there is a better model would win the nobel prize.

Franics Collins hasn't got a nobel prize, and if he did it would be for his work on the human genome, not for his work on evolution or creationism. Do you know why that is? Because he has NO published work on evolution/creationism, lol.

He has some weird hypothisis where he tries to meld god into evolution and an old earth model. again, he has no evidence or published work on it that i'm aware of, he just tries to insert his version of god with no justification or evidence to back it up.

I seriously hope this is not the best you've got, lol

 

[mathclub]

Science is neutral or it's not science. If you walk in with preconceived ideas like: "water can't be turned into wine" then your defeated before you begin.

no, that's exactly how science works. it's not neutral on every single idea, it sides with the evidence.

we have zero examples or water being turned into wine. the turning of water into wine does not meld with any evidence we have gained from the field of chemistry or physics.

so until such time that we have some evidence that supports water turning into wine, no one should believe that water can be turned into wine.

If a scientist were asked, 'can water be turned into wine', the full and correct answer would be something like ... 'Given our current understanding of the universe and how it works, we have no evidence that it is possible to turn water into wine, or that such a process is possible within the known laws of the universe. Until such time that the relevant evidence exists we reject the hypothesis that water can be turned into wine.'

But given that caveats like 'until such time', 'we never rule anything out' and 'no current evidence exists' would need to be made with every single statement uttered by a scientist, this just gets shortened to 'water can't be turned into wine' a lot. no one saying that it is totally and utterly impossible, just that no evidence exists so we don't believe it.

feel free to produce some evidence and turn science on it's head. lots of nobel prizes, money and glory for anyone who can prove this stuff.

 

[Jamin4422]

we have zero examples or water being turned into wine. the turning of water into wine does not meld with any evidence we have gained from the field of chemistry or physics.

If you want to turn water into wine then perhaps you need to study farming. Because the grape is more then able to get the job done. Many or much of what we read in the Bible Science is able to support. So it is not really an issue the few things that Science has not produced any evidence for.

 

[The Engineer]

If you want to turn water into wine then perhaps you need to study farming. Because the grape is more then able to get the job done. Many or much of what we read in the Bible Science is able to support. So it is not really an issue the few things that Science has not produced any evidence for.

We're not talking about how producing wine is impossible, but about how the way Jesus spontaneously turned water into wine is scientifically implausible.

 

[mathclub]

If you want to turn water into wine then perhaps you need to study farming. Because the grape is more then able to get the job done. Many or much of what we read in the Bible Science is able to support. So it is not really an issue the few things that Science has not produced any evidence for.

The bible doesn't say Jesus made the water Into wine using grapes and farming. It says he magicked it. Farming, proven and plausible. Magicking, unproven and implausible.

Given up on Francis Collins and the lack of scientific evidence behind creationism have we??

Smart move.

 

[Tiberius]

If you want to turn water into wine then perhaps you need to study farming. Because the grape is more then able to get the job done. Many or much of what we read in the Bible Science is able to support. So it is not really an issue the few things that Science has not produced any evidence for.

Is that how he did it? he took the water, used it to irrigate the vines, then picked the grapes, crushed them, let it all ferment, and that's how he turned the water into wine?