Truth in Science

[Iosias]

Just thought I would draw your attention to Truth in Science.

 

[random_guy]

I wouldn't trust a site that calls itself, "Truth in Science", then blatantly lies and distorts scientific evidence.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows.

We have many transitionals between most of the major splits (fish-reptile, reptile-mammal, reptile-bird, etc...).

 

[vossler]

We have many transitionals between most of the major splits (fish-reptile, reptile-mammal, reptile-bird, etc...).

Keep saying it; we have many, we have many, we have many...

 

[Assyrian]

Keep denying it. If you say it often enough it might come true. God will reward you faith by making all those fossils disappear. Oh no sorry, he was the one who created the transitionals in the first place. He is not going to get rid of them just because you don't believe they should exist.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Keep saying it; we have many, we have many, we have many...

Why doesn't archaeopteryx count as a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern aves?

 

[theFijian]

Keep saying it; we have many, we have many, we have many...

I didn't realise you worked for Truth in Science.

 

[random_guy]

Well, let's have a challenge. Can any Creationists in this thread give me the correct scientific definition of a transitional fossil? After that, can a Creationists explain, using the correct definition, why Tiktaalik roseae, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, etc... are not transitional fossils? And that's just a few fossils for the transition between fish-reptiles.

Hint: No Creationist on this board has ever given me the correct scientific definition of a transitional fossil. The reason is because once they give the definition, it's impossible to label those fossils mentioned above as not transitional.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well, let's have a challenge. Can any Creationists in this thread give me the correct scientific definition of a transitional fossil? After that, can a Creationists explain, using the correct definition, why Tiktaalik roseae, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, etc... are not transitional fossils? And that's just a few fossils for the transition between fish-reptiles.

Hint: No Creationist on this board has ever given me the correct scientific definition of a transitional fossil. The reason is because once they give the definition, it's impossible to label those fossils mentioned above as not transitional.

Start a thread on this, it'll be fun.

 

[lucaspa]

Just thought I would draw your attention to Truth in Science.

How ironic that they call this pack of lies "truth". And you give it a thumbs up!

Tell me, is it just as much false witness if you repeat the false witness of others as though it is true?

 

[lucaspa]

Why doesn't archaeopteryx count as a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern aves?

Because, technically speaking, Archie is an intermediate. Technically, a "transitional" species is on the direct ancestor, descendent line. Archie is an offshoot from that line. In evolutionary terms, it is a great-uncle of modern birds, not a great-grandfather.

H. erectus would be a transitional species from the common ancestor of apes and humans to humans because H. erectus is our immediate evolutionary ancestor.

 

[Willtor]

Isn't it difficult to tell that something is a direct ancestor vs. "great uncle"? How did they tell with Archaeopteryx? Presumably not with DNA.

 

[lucaspa]

Isn't it difficult to tell that something is a direct ancestor vs. "great uncle"? How did they tell with Archaeopteryx? Presumably not with DNA.

Oh, it's VERY difficult. Which is why, unless you have a sequence of transitional individuals (which do exist), most of the time we have intermediates.

Archeopteryx was not a direct ancestor because there are species without some of the reptilian features that are older than Archie. Therefore those species are already further along the transition from dino to bird than Archie.
5. L Chiappe, Wings over Spain. Natural History 107: 30-32, Sept. 1998. Describes primitive birds from 115 Mya, 15 Mya less than Archie.

Penguins are obviously in the transition from flying birds to animals that are totally aquatic. There are 14 or so species of penguins alive now. Imagine coming back 15 million years from now and finding totally aquatic "penguins". That is, they look enough like penguins that you can infer that they evolved from penguins but they never come on land.

Of the 14 or so species of penguins living now, which one (and there is only one species that will be the ancestor) of those was the ancestor of the fully aquatic penguins 15 million years from now? Pretty hard to tell, isn't it?

So, today we have 13 species that would be "uncles" but only 1 that is the "grandfather". It doesn't negate anything about evolution, but it does allow creationists to play the shell game about what is a "transitional". Basically, it's a loophole for creationists to bear false witness.

 

[lucaspa]

Just thought I would draw your attention to Truth in Science.

"The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows."

This is just one of the lies. I've posted sequences between species many times. And that is only a small percentage of those available. After all, I'm a biochemist, not a paleontologist, so I haven't done a complete search of the paleontological literature.

Not only that, but there are so many of these transitional sequences that paleontologists don't even bother to document them anymore. Remember, scientific publications are about NEW knowledge, not simply about one more example of something that is already demonstrated.

"Second, other fossil groups have been well enough studied that we know sequences of transitional fossils comprising a series of chronologically successive species grading from an early form to a later form (Table 3), again sometimes crossing boundaries separating different higher taxa (Table 4). This type of situation can be termed successive species. Published descriptions of successive species lack explicit discussion of individual transitionals between the species, although frequently such exist in the author's collection but are not discussed becasue they are not directly pertinent to his purposes." Cuffey, RJ. "Paleontolgic Evidence and Organic Evolution" in Science and Creationism, ed. by Ashley Montagu, 1983, pp 257-260.

"In many instances, transitional individuals exist but are not reported explicitly as evolutionary lineages, for several reasons. Fully documenting such complete sequences is rather expensive in both research effort and publication cost; thus, many remain unpublished (Berry & Boucot, 1970, p 30-3`). Moreover, the practicing paleontologist sees little need to repeatedly reprove well-established concepts, especially when his primary concern is with other matters such as biostratigraphic dating (Berry, 1960, p 9)." pg 265.