What about the DNA evidence?

[Loudmouth]

Personally, I think it would be more accurate to say they are representative of a reptile/mammal transitional.

In the end, where you draw the line will be arbitrary.

 

[Loudmouth]

One of them is Archaeopteryx: Facts about the Transitional Fossil | LiveScience

Another is Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch as first bird - life - 27 July 2011 - New Scientist

Both are more or less saying the same thing.

Since when did Archaeopteryx need to be the first bird in order to be transitional?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since when did Archaeopteryx need to be the first bird in order to be transitional?

What is it transitional too, since it is no longer transitional between birds and dinosaurs? It needs not be transitional at all, merely it's own species. We were once assured it was transitional between dinosaurs and birds, but that is no longer believed, so it has lost its transitional status and is merely once again it's own species, in stasis, as are all fossils.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is it transitional too, since it is no longer transitional between birds and dinosaurs? It needs not be transitional at all, merely it's own species. We were once assured it was transitional between dinosaurs and birds, but that is no longer believed, so it has lost its transitional status and is merely once again it's own species, in stasis, as are all fossils.

What?

No. You misunderstand what has been said. The evidence supports the fact that it is a transitional species. The fact that scientists cannot even decide whether it is best represented as a bird or a dinosaur is further testimony to its transitional status.

One consequence of the theory of evolution is that if it is correct there would be animals that experts cannot agree what group to put it in. In fact even creationists have supported evolution by arguing where a particular fossil belongs. For example there was debate among creationists about if Homo erectus was an ape or a man. In other words your own side confirmed that it was a transitional species between man and other apes.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is it transitional too, since it is no longer transitional between birds and dinosaurs?

It has bird features not seen in dinosaurs. It has dinosaur features not seen in modern birds. It is transitional. Whether or not it was the first bird is inconsequential to the fact that it is transitional.

It needs not be transitional at all, merely it's own species.

Transitional species will also be their own species. Being your own species does not disqualify you from being transitional.

We were once assured it was transitional between dinosaurs and birds, but that is no longer believed, so it has lost its transitional status and is merely once again it's own species, in stasis, as are all fossils.

Once again, you are confusing ancestral with transitional. Archaeopteryx is still transitional. Always has been.

 

[46AND2]

Yes they have claimed this.

No they haven't. Re-read what I said. They have never said that Archaeopteryx was ANCESTRAL. TRANSITIONAL DOES NOT EQUAL ANCESTRAL. If you get nothing else out of my post, please learn the bold statement here.

They have used Archaeopteryx as the great transitional in their literature and many on this site and other forums still use it as a definite example and proof.

That's because it is a definite example. Not proof, though. I know you have been told about science not dealing with proof. Please use the word evidence instead of proof. We'll get a lot farther if we are all using the same terminology.

The problem is despite looking for over 100 years there is very little evidence of transitional fossils.

There is no problem here at all. Scientists have what they consider transitional fossils. What you are looking for, science doesn't claim to exist, nor do we need it to.

Despite you saying that it is hard and a long time ago they have found many fossils from all periods and none seem to have any transitionals. They are all complete creatures with fully functioning parts. They may have another aspect of some other creature but it is fully formed and functional feature.

Yup, fully formed and functional. Exactly as scientists state that it should. Like I said, what you are looking for, science doesn't need. We never claim there ever existed these mythical creatures with half formed, useless appendages. So why should we find them in the fossil record?

So i think the evidence is shaky but evolutionists carry on like its overwhelming and would not have any such mention of it being in doubt or questionable to interpretation.

It IS overwhelming. The fossil record is not even the strongest evidence. You are trying to pick holes in a tiny facet of the overall science of it. Even if we had ZERO fossils to work with, we would STILL know that evolution occurs.

If you want to see an airtight argument (or as close to it as it gets, imo), look at the many threads on here about ERVs. Study them. Understand why it is so compelling. Don't bring up any argument until you have read through several of these threads, because EVERY creationist argument brought forth thus far has been addressed in one or more of those threads.

Also worthy of note is pseudogenes like the Vitamin C gene. There are a few threads about that on here, as well.

The problem they see it one way and others see it another and there is no definite evidence to say which way it is at the moment.

Yes there is. Despite what you think, there is not merely alternate interpretations of the evidence. There is a right one, and a wrong one.

They have turned what maybe variation within a species into new species based on the fossils records which as you said is hard as it is patchy and inconclusive. Yet they will use this as evidence for evolution in their literature and in schools.

Yes, because it is ALSO backed by MULTIPLE other scientific disciplines.

I am talking about stages with a particular creature that shows it growing wings or legs and then completely becoming another different type of creature. There are many gaps and the genetics are creating more gaps in the tree that Darwinists have made. There are creatures being put into the lines that they have linked animals together with which are completely different looking and should not belong according to the similarities that should be shown that links creature the way Darwinists say.

So...by your rationale, because we make mistakes on a few here and there, then that means that we are likely wrong about ALL of them?

And can you please provide an example of a DNA link between creatures which "should not belong" according to homology?

 

[46AND2]

It doesn't hurt evolution AT ALL if EVERY SINGLE Arcaeopteryx was killed off at the time in which whatever event that made those fossils happened.

And yet, it is STILL transitional. Even if not a singe one survived to evolve any further. Because transitional does not mean ancestral.

 

[stevevw]

Since when did Archaeopteryx need to be the first bird in order to be transitional?

Well it would have to be but they put it there at the base of the Dino to bird branch. They made it the star attraction and it was used as one of the No1 examples. But now it is seen as a Dino with feathers and wings and not a bird. It has been placed in the group of dinos with feathers in which there are quite a few. I dont think this group is classed as transitionals as they didnt lead to birds. Just because they happen to have a similar feature to birds doesn't mean they are a transitional. They just happen to have that feature even though they are dinosaurs. They think another creature a pigeon-size feathered creature known as Epidexipteryx hui recently discovered in Inner Mongolia, China is the new candidate for early birds.

 

[46AND2]

Well it would have to be but they put it there at the base of the Dino to bird branch.

No, it would not have to be. You are still hung up on the ancestral thing.

It could have completely died out, producing no further offspring after the event which fossilized them, and it would STILL be transitional.

This conversation can not proceed properly until you understand this point. Because you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding about what a transitional fossil is...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it would not have to be. You are still hung up on the ancestral thing.

It could have completely died out, producing no further offspring after the event which fossilized them, and it would STILL be transitional.

This conversation can not proceed properly until you understand this point. Because you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding about what a transitional fossil is...

And yet you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding of what variation is. It can't be transitional between dinosaur and bird, that was ruled out, so now it is just transitional, even though we don't know from what or to what, but we can be assured it is transitional, just as we were assured it was transitional between dinosaur and bird. That fact didn't pan out so well the first time. But we are now to accept it is transitional, because the same people that claimed it was transitional between dinosaur and bird say so? Yah well, they were wrong then too.

Just as they were wrong about the Coelacanth, just as they were wrong about at least 12 baby or adult dinosaur they classified as transitional, even though they were the same species. Just as they were wrong about half a dozen variation of H Erectus they claimed were transitional, but turned out to be mere variation.

Evolutionists track record inspires no confidence. You once claimed all these were proven facts, facts that turned out not to be that factual after all. But now once again, we are assured it is transitional, to what or from what, who cares, but by god it is transitional.

If you say so, but I think evolutionists have a problem with jumping to conclusions from mere fragments. Conclusions that time after time after years go by are shown to be wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It has bird features not seen in dinosaurs. It has dinosaur features not seen in modern birds. It is transitional. Whether or not it was the first bird is inconsequential to the fact that it is transitional.

So what, many species share similarities and have differences, that does not make them share the same lineage. Evolutionists jumped to conclusions the first time about it being transitional and were wrong, and I have no doubt evolutionists are wrong now too. The same people that told me it was transitional between dinosaur and bird are the same people that were wrong and are now telling me it is transitional between something.

I think you have a transitional stuck mindset and that is all you can see. Even the DNA evidence does not support that upward branching tree, but mere sideways variation, just as we see in cats and dogs in a few generations within our lifetime that might have taken thousands of years without mans interference and you would mistake as transitional in the fossil record.

Transitional species will also be their own species. Being your own species does not disqualify you from being transitional.

Like Lions and Tigers which interbreed and produce fertile offspring but are seperate species against your own definition of species? If you say so.

Once again, you are confusing ancestral with transitional. Archaeopteryx is still transitional. Always has been.

Transitional means from one to another, but we have ruled out it came from dinosaur and became bird, so it came from itself and ended up itself? If it transitioned from something else it had an ancestor, take the word games elsewhere, no circular reasoning will be allowed. You have no evidence it is transitional at all except that you want it to be so. Desire is not scientific fact, nor is hypothesis.

 

[stevevw]

No they haven't. Re-read what I said. They have never said that Archaeopteryx was ANCESTRAL. TRANSITIONAL DOES NOT EQUAL ANCESTRAL. If you get nothing else out of my post, please learn the bold statement here.

Sorry I thought you meant transitional. But isnt the fact that they had the Archaeopteryx at the base mean that it was a possible ancestor to birds.

That's because it is a definite example. Not proof, though. I know you have been told about science not dealing with proof. Please use the word evidence instead of proof. We'll get a lot farther if we are all using the same terminology.

Sorry once again I tend to like many use proof and evidence as the same. I understand now in science you have to be more specific as with the word kinds and species.

As i said before they are saying that the Archaeopteryx is not a bird or in a group that lead to birds. Just a Dino with feathers in which there are a few.

There is no problem here at all. Scientists have what they consider transitional fossils. What you are looking for, science doesn't claim to exist, nor do we need it to.

Yes they should. Because you and evolutionists are looking at the structural changes you assume that the similarities between them are transitions and show that one came from the other. To get from say a lizard to a snake you would need gradual stages of losing their legs. We have fossils of a creature with fully formed rear legs and suddenly no front legs. We have a creature with 4 legs and we have a creature with no legs. All found and fully functional. What we dont have is a creature or fossil showing say the legs becoming something else like a stump that is still functional for something that gets smaller and smaller.

Yup, fully formed and functional. Exactly as scientists state that it should. Like I said, what you are looking for, science doesn't need. We never claim there ever existed these mythical creatures with half formed, useless appendages. So why should we find them in the fossil record?

Well because getting from no legs to legs or no wings to wings means a big jump in structure. If evolution is small gradual changes then there should be many stages that can be seen. If a dog sized creature evolved into a whale of near on 100 feet then i would say there would be over 100 stages. They only show several and then they are only linked because of a couple of similarities that are assumed. Yet they also have similarities with other creatures like the cow.

Because genetics is throwing up a lot of contradiction as to what evolutionists have said so far then it brings into question other things they have made out by the observation of similar features that may appear in creatures. Basing transitions and links this way is very shaky and there has always been other evidence that it wasnt necessarily the case such as contradicting features the creature may have had as well. The Archaeopteryx is a good example in how they have known that the evidence wasnt great because it was showing more similarities as a Dino than anything else but they still kept it as the greatest example and didn't want to let go. Now genetics are doing the same for other creatures and especially in the bacteria and micro world.

You have to remember that it is not just the visible structures that need to transform but also the whole systems of things as well. Their nervous systems, the way signals are transmitted through the brain, the way muscles are connected, the makeups of skin and other features have to be totally transformed into another creature. In some cases such as from land to sea or the other way around there maybe as many as 10s of thousands of things that need to transform. But we are not seeing that in the present or in the past.

It IS overwhelming. The fossil record is not even the strongest evidence. You are trying to pick holes in a tiny facet of the overall science of it. Even if we had ZERO fossils to work with, we would STILL know that evolution occurs.

If you want to see an airtight argument (or as close to it as it gets, imo), look at the many threads on here about ERVs. Study them. Understand why it is so compelling. Don't bring up any argument until you have read through several of these threads, because EVERY creationist argument brought forth thus far has been addressed in one or more of those threads.

Also worthy of note is pseudogenes like the Vitamin C gene. There are a few threads about that on here, as well.



Yes there is. Despite what you think, there is not merely alternate interpretations of the evidence. There is a right one, and a wrong one.



Yes, because it is ALSO backed by MULTIPLE other scientific disciplines.



So...by your rationale, because we make mistakes on a few here and there, then that means that we are likely wrong about ALL of them?

And can you please provide an example of a DNA link between creatures which "should not belong" according to homology?

Well the best evidence and area of science i regard as most reliable is the genetics. Evolutionist try to link creatures by their look and similar features. We all know this is shaky as it is an observation without any definite confirmation.

When they started to look at the genetics and match it to what evolutionists were saying and predicting it was showing a different picture. It was linking different looking creatures together when it should have shown that creatures that looked like they came from each other should have the closet genetics. HGT also showed that there were other ways for creatures to get their features so this also made it harder to tell where they came from and what features were a result of natural selection. More and more genetics is showing a different tree in fact a hedge rather than a tree thanks to gene transfer. It is placing and linking creatures and organism that look like they dont belong together and taking others out of the neat line and branches that evolutionist had built. Therefore it has and is creating more gaps and making it harder to prove evolution in the way Darwin made it and could also be showing that the evolution theory as we know is completely wrong.

These days, phylogeneticists – experts who painstakingly map the complex branches of the tree of life – suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The genomics revolution has given them mountains of DNA data that they can sift through to reconstruct the evolutionary history that connects all living beings. But the unprecedented quantity has also caused a serious problem: The trees produced by a number of well-supported studies have come to contradictory conclusions.
“It has become common for top-notch studies to report genealogies that strongly contradict each other in where certain organisms sprang from, such as the place of sponges on the animal tree or of snails on the tree of mollusks


Untangling the Tree of Life


For a century and a half evolutionary biologists have been trying to prove that this tree is real rather than just a mental concept or a taxonomic tool for naming things. The discovery of DNA was thought to be the answer to validating the hereditary associations of different species. By sequencing the genetic material of living things it was predicted that the relationships of animals could be shown to be real; ultimately supporting the idea that similar beings share ancestry. Gene sequences were thought to enable an unbiased proof of evolution through the construction of molecular phylogenetic trees. It was hoped that random modification in the DNA code would allow scientists to literally visualize the history of evolutionary change. However, what actually has happened is that an entirely new genetic branch of life was discovered; totally unrelated to the bacteria or multicellular organisms.


Molecular phylogeny discovers an entire new branch of life form – the archaebacteria.
The discovery of the archaeal bacteria established an entirely new branch of biology. And now there is more unrelated organism to deal with than related organisms. Molecular phylogeny created new problems for evolution and has not answered any problems save the revelation of a failed theory.

I repeat, the development of a tree of related species has proven to be false. Gene sequence alignments create “networks” of connections of completely different, obviously unrelated types of beings. DNA did not and will not conform to descent with modification.
For example, 2000 gene sequences common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes were compared.1 Theoretically, the results should have constructed a tree that revealed evolutionary relationships. However, different genes aligned in different sequence among the 6 types of life forms. No tree is possible in such an analysis. Ultimately, there appears to be no consistent relationship among these animals.


Molecular phylogeny represented as trees, the result of DNA sequence alignments, has failed to support biological evolution.

The evidence in molecular biology damns the descent with modification hypothesis. New evidence does not just blur the edges of this incredibly poor hypothesis but it erases its hold on biological science altogether.


[FONT=&quot]Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog Molecular Phylogeny Proves Evolution is False. | Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog[/FONT]

The Darwin tree of life is wrong and shows that many of the branches are wrong

Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".

But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals.
[FONT=&quot]Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

[/FONT] Similarities are often used as arguments for evolution. But lack of similarities is never accepted as an argument against it. The similarity of the shape of my hand and that of a frog is an argument for common ancestry. The difference between mine and that of a horse or a bat is not. And yet the latter are supposed to be closer relatives of mine.
The same logic is used when claiming that the universality of the genetic system (DNA-RNA-protein) proves common ancestry. There are many biochemical systems that are not universal. They are specific for some groups of organisms and absent in others. These are never accepted as arguments against evolution.
Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic2 distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic3 sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus,4 not Darwin.
[FONT=&quot]Professor of Genetics Says ''No!'' to Evolution - Answers in Genesis


[/FONT]

 

[46AND2]

Well the best evidence and area of science i regard as most reliable is the genetics. Evolutionist try to link creatures by their look and similar features. We all know this is shaky as it is an observation without any definite confirmation.

When they started to look at the genetics and match it to what evolutionists were saying and predicting it was showing a different picture. It was linking different looking creatures together when it should have shown that creatures that looked like they came from each other should have the closet genetics. HGT also showed that there were other ways for creatures to get their features so this also made it harder to tell where they came from and what features were a result of natural selection. More and more genetics is showing a different tree in fact a hedge rather than a tree thanks to gene transfer. It is placing and linking creatures and organism that look like they dont belong together and taking others out of the neat line and branches that evolutionist had built. Therefore it has and is creating more gaps and making it harder to prove evolution in the way Darwin made it and could also be showing that the evolution theory as we know is completely wrong.

These days, phylogeneticists – experts who painstakingly map the complex branches of the tree of life – suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The genomics revolution has given them mountains of DNA data that they can sift through to reconstruct the evolutionary history that connects all living beings. But the unprecedented quantity has also caused a serious problem: The trees produced by a number of well-supported studies have come to contradictory conclusions.
“It has become common for top-notch studies to report genealogies that strongly contradict each other in where certain organisms sprang from, such as the place of sponges on the animal tree or of snails on the tree of mollusks


Untangling the Tree of Life


For a century and a half evolutionary biologists have been trying to prove that this tree is real rather than just a mental concept or a taxonomic tool for naming things. The discovery of DNA was thought to be the answer to validating the hereditary associations of different species. By sequencing the genetic material of living things it was predicted that the relationships of animals could be shown to be real; ultimately supporting the idea that similar beings share ancestry. Gene sequences were thought to enable an unbiased proof of evolution through the construction of molecular phylogenetic trees. It was hoped that random modification in the DNA code would allow scientists to literally visualize the history of evolutionary change. However, what actually has happened is that an entirely new genetic branch of life was discovered; totally unrelated to the bacteria or multicellular organisms.


Molecular phylogeny discovers an entire new branch of life form – the archaebacteria.
The discovery of the archaeal bacteria established an entirely new branch of biology. And now there is more unrelated organism to deal with than related organisms. Molecular phylogeny created new problems for evolution and has not answered any problems save the revelation of a failed theory.

I repeat, the development of a tree of related species has proven to be false. Gene sequence alignments create “networks” of connections of completely different, obviously unrelated types of beings. DNA did not and will not conform to descent with modification.
For example, 2000 gene sequences common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes were compared.1 Theoretically, the results should have constructed a tree that revealed evolutionary relationships. However, different genes aligned in different sequence among the 6 types of life forms. No tree is possible in such an analysis. Ultimately, there appears to be no consistent relationship among these animals.


Molecular phylogeny represented as trees, the result of DNA sequence alignments, has failed to support biological evolution.

The evidence in molecular biology damns the descent with modification hypothesis. New evidence does not just blur the edges of this incredibly poor hypothesis but it erases its hold on biological science altogether.


[FONT=&quot]Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog Molecular Phylogeny Proves Evolution is False. | Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog[/FONT]

The Darwin tree of life is wrong and shows that many of the branches are wrong

Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".

But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals.
[FONT=&quot]Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

[/FONT] Similarities are often used as arguments for evolution. But lack of similarities is never accepted as an argument against it. The similarity of the shape of my hand and that of a frog is an argument for common ancestry. The difference between mine and that of a horse or a bat is not. And yet the latter are supposed to be closer relatives of mine.
The same logic is used when claiming that the universality of the genetic system (DNA-RNA-protein) proves common ancestry. There are many biochemical systems that are not universal. They are specific for some groups of organisms and absent in others. These are never accepted as arguments against evolution.
Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic2 distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic3 sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus,4 not Darwin.
[FONT=&quot]Professor of Genetics Says ''No!'' to Evolution - Answers in Genesis


[/FONT]

Before I reply to your post, may I offer a suggestion when you want to place a reply between paragraphs of the post you are responding to? If you close my quote after the words you want to respond to, prior to placing your own response, it will separate your quote from mine, and make it easier to follow (and for us to reply to). Then re-open my quote just before the next paragraph or sentence or whatever that I wrote.

For example, say I wanted to respond to your first paragraph in this post...I would put [ / quote] after "...any definite confirmation."

Then, when I get done with my response, I'll place [ quote ] before the next paragraph begins "When they started..."

When you put your quotes inside of mine, it's harder to follow, and more likely that some of your points will be missed.

 

[46AND2]

Sorry I thought you meant transitional. But isnt the fact that they had the Archaeopteryx at the base mean that it was a possible ancestor to birds.

Possible, yes. Any fossil that is considered transitional can POSSIBLY be ancestral, until it is proven not to be through means such as DNA, or more advanced bird/dino (or reptile/mammal, or whatever) homology in other fossils that pre-dates it.

Sorry once again I tend to like many use proof and evidence as the same. I understand now in science you have to be more specific as with the word kinds and species.

In creation and evolution discussions, this distinction is key, because people on your side of the issue tend to request proof in the colloquial sense, and people who accept the science respond in the scientific sense that there is no "proof." And too many creationists take this as a feather in their cap, when in reality there has been no concession. It's simply talking past each other.

As i said before they are saying that the Archaeopteryx is not a bird or in a group that lead to birds. Just a Dino with feathers in which there are a few.

I don't see what the problem is here. So what if it isn't ancestral to birds. It STILL demonstrates a mix of bird and dino features. It STILL shows that there was a transition going on between the two. So what if it was actually Archaeopteryx's cousin which was the actual ancestor?

Why does a dino have bird feathers? Why would God create a fundamentally different bill for the platypus than the duck, but the same type of feathers for dino and birds? Why would he create fundamentally different wings for bats than birds, but give the same toes for birds and dinos?

Yes they should. Because you and evolutionists are looking at the structural changes you assume that the similarities between them are transitions and show that one came from the other.

No, they shouldn't. You are looking for functionless "in between" attributes. That is not part of evolutionary theory. Scientists do not need to find these useless parts in the fossil record, because they never claim that they existed in the first place.

To get from say a lizard to a snake you would need gradual stages of losing their legs. We have fossils of a creature with fully formed rear legs and suddenly no front legs. We have a creature with 4 legs and we have a creature with no legs. All found and fully functional. What we dont have is a creature or fossil showing say the legs becoming something else like a stump that is still functional for something that gets smaller and smaller.

So your complaint is analogous to a person losing weight taking a picture only once every 4 months, and saying that he didn't lose weight because we don't have a daily record.

Besides which, we DO have examples of these, and I know they have been given to you. The nostrils moving up the skull to become blowholes. The earbone migration from reptile to mammal. The horse hoof.

Well because getting from no legs to legs or no wings to wings means a big jump in structure. If evolution is small gradual changes then there should be many stages that can be seen.

that can be seen? Says who?

Perhaps you should tell your God to have provided more fossil preserving events, then. I mean, seriously. Those might be big jumps, but the period between fossilization events was even bigger. Not much we can do about that. We can, however, work with what we have.

If a dog sized creature evolved into a whale of near on 100 feet then i would say there would be over 100 stages.

Many more than that....

They only show several and then they are only linked because of a couple of similarities that are assumed. Yet they also have similarities with other creatures like the cow.

Yes, and whales and cows are both mammals. Of course they will have similarities, too. They ALSO have a common ancestor. It's about DEGREE of similarity.

Because genetics is throwing up a lot of contradiction as to what evolutionists have said so far then it brings into question other things they have made out by the observation of similar features that may appear in creatures. Basing transitions and links this way is very shaky and there has always been other evidence that it wasnt necessarily the case such as contradicting features the creature may have had as well.

Is genetics throwing us some curve balls? Certainly. But as I have said before, this does not mean that we throw out everything we know about morphology simply because it is proving to be more complex than we originally thought it would be.

You conveniently dismiss the fact that genetics CONFIRMS much of the nested hierarchy. In particular, I'll point to the great apes. By way of morphology, embryology, and other disciplines we determined that chimps were our closest relatives, then gorillas and so on. DNA has confirmed that, in spades.

The Archaeopteryx is a good example in how they have known that the evidence wasnt great because it was showing more similarities as a Dino than anything else but they still kept it as the greatest example and didn't want to let go.

Didn't want to let go? WHO said it was showing to have more dino features? Creationists? HAH! It is SCIENTISTS who are telling you it has more dino features than avian.

Now genetics are doing the same for other creatures and especially in the bacteria and micro world.

Yes, because, understandably, HGT would make a mess of the tree, and we now know that this occurs at the micro level.

You have to remember that it is not just the visible structures that need to transform but also the whole systems of things as well. Their nervous systems, the way signals are transmitted through the brain, the way muscles are connected, the makeups of skin and other features have to be totally transformed into another creature. In some cases such as from land to sea or the other way around there maybe as many as 10s of thousands of things that need to transform. But we are not seeing that in the present or in the past.

Totally transformed? Whales have lungs. Bats have metatarsals. The laryngeal nerve goes around the heart in a giraffe the same way it does in humans. Cytochrome C from a human can be implanted into yeast, and would function just fine.

And as far as I know, the signals fire the same way through the brain of a gila monster as it does through the brain of a human.

Well the best evidence and area of science i regard as most reliable is the genetics.

Agreed. You should be happy to look at the ERVs and pseudogenes, then.

Evolutionist try to link creatures by their look and similar features.

This is just one of MANY ways that we try to link creatures. This is how it got started, yes. But we have come a long way since Darwin, and if the other sciences did not confirm morphology, we would have dropped it long ago.

We all know this is shaky as it is an observation without any definite confirmation.

Good thing we have the confirmation, then.

When they started to look at the genetics and match it to what evolutionists were saying and predicting it was showing a different picture.

Boloney. Are there surprises? Of course. But it pales in comparison to the confirmations.

It was linking different looking creatures together when it should have shown that creatures that looked like they came from each other should have the closet genetics.

Such as?

What about genetics and the tree for the Great Apes? How's that match up?

I fail to see the significance of a few misplaced creatures here and there, when the majority matches up.

HGT also showed that there were other ways for creatures to get their features so this also made it harder to tell where they came from and what features were a result of natural selection.

And sfs told you that HGT is significant VERY early in the tree of life. Complex organisms do not experience this phenomenon.

More and more genetics is showing a different tree in fact a hedge rather than a tree thanks to gene transfer. It is placing and linking creatures and organism that look like they dont belong together and taking others out of the neat line and branches that evolutionist had built. Therefore it has and is creating more gaps and making it harder to prove evolution in the way Darwin made it and could also be showing that the evolution theory as we know is completely wrong.

What creatures, specifically, are placed together because of HGT that shouldn't be that way based on morphology? Anything NOT microscopic?



I'll get to the rest of your post when I have more time...

 

[stevevw]

Before I reply to your post, may I offer a suggestion when you want to place a reply between paragraphs of the post you are responding to? If you close my quote after the words you want to respond to, prior to placing your own response, it will separate your quote from mine, and make it easier to follow (and for us to reply to). Then re-open my quote just before the next paragraph or sentence or whatever that I wrote.

For example, say I wanted to respond to your first paragraph in this post...I would put [ / quote] after "...any definite confirmation."

Then, when I get done with my response, I'll place [ quote ] before the next paragraph begins "When they started..."

When you put your quotes inside of mine, it's harder to follow, and more likely that some of your points will be missed.

Ok ive been just wrapping what i say with quotes. I will highlight what i have said by right clicking and dragging over text and then hit quote. This will put a quote at the beginning and the end.

So i have to just put 1 quote after what you say and not at the beginning of what i say. Then i put another quote at the begi9nning of the next bit you say but not at the end of what i say. How do you do a quote if you want to just put one like that. I only know to do it by wrapping the text. I had asked this before as i couldn't find any instructions in the how to section and wasn't sure. Will this then make my writing different to yours like you have with the straight writing and and mine is slanted. Rather then them being the same.

Believe it or not i had written a reply to what you had said earlier but i had left it for a while and then it said i couldn't post it as the token or something wasn't authenticated. I would imagine because i had left it and it timed out. I lost all my info when i reloaded the page. Oh well its not my day. I think it might be easier to just agree with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well it would have to be . . .

I know that this is your claim. I am asking WHY this is so.

but they put it there at the base of the Dino to bird branch. They made it the star attraction and it was used as one of the No1 examples. But now it is seen as a Dino with feathers and wings and not a bird.

A dinosaur with feathers and wings IS EXACTLY WHAT A TRANSITIONAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE!!!!

Whether a species belongs in the dinosaur bin or the bird bin has nothing to do with whether or not it is transitional. Given that we have just two bins, every single species must go in one of those two bins. For every early bird species there will be a dinosaur species in the other bin that is very similar to it, and transitional as well. Ultimately, where you draw the line between bird and non-avian dinosaur is entirely arbitrary.

It has been placed in the group of dinos with feathers in which there are quite a few.

It is also a dino with feathers that is transitional between dinos without feathers and modern birds. Or are you saying that if evolution were true that a non-feathered, non-winged dinosaur would give birth to a sea gull? If birds did evolve from dinosaurs then we would expect to see transitionals that have more dinosaur features than bird features, would we not? These would be put in the dino bin, BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE TRANSITIONAL.

Do you understand why declaring Archaeopteryx a dinosaur does not disqualify it from being transitional?

I dont think this group is classed as transitionals as they didnt lead to birds.

TRANSITIONAL DOES NOT MEAN ANCESTRAL!!!!

How many times must we repeat this? A species can have no living descendants and still be transitional. We determine if a fossil is transitional by comparing its morphology to other groups of species. That's it.

Darwin actually described transitional species quite well:

"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."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

When we are talking about transitional fossils, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about collateral descendants (i.e. cousins) that have preserved features from the line that did lead to modern species. We can never, ever know whether or not any fossil has living descendants, short of rescuing DNA from the fossil which is currently impossible for 50 million year old fossils.

Just because they happen to have a similar feature to birds doesn't mean they are a transitional. They just happen to have that feature even though they are dinosaurs.

Then what criteria do you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not if not by its morphology?

 

[Loudmouth]

So what, many species share similarities and have differences, that does not make them share the same lineage. Evolutionists jumped to conclusions the first time about it being transitional and were wrong, and I have no doubt evolutionists are wrong now too.

They still say that Archaeopteryx is transitional. That hasn't changed.

TRANSITIONAL DOES NOT MEAN ANCESTRAL!!!

How many times must we go over this?

I think you have a transitional stuck mindset and that is all you can see. Even the DNA evidence does not support that upward branching tree, but mere sideways variation, just as we see in cats and dogs in a few generations within our lifetime that might have taken thousands of years without mans interference and you would mistake as transitional in the fossil record.

Evidence please.

Like Lions and Tigers which interbreed and produce fertile offspring but are seperate species against your own definition of species? If you say so.

Why are there lions and tigers? If there is no ongoing speciation between the groups then you should have a single population between them. You don't. You have separate populations with no gene flow that is producing divergence between the groups. This is macroevolution in progress.

Transitional means from one to another,

No, it means having a mixture of features from two divergent taxa.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding of what variation is. It can't be transitional between dinosaur and bird, that was ruled out,

No, it wasn't. The only thing that was ruled out is Archaeopteryx being a direct ancestor of living birds. Archaeopteryx is still transitional.

TRANSITIONAL DOES NOT MEAN ANCESTRAL!!!!

Just as they were wrong about the Coelacanth,

"The" Coelacanth? Are you aware that there are hundreds of species of coelacanths? Are you also aware that the living species of coelacanth are not found anywhere in the fossil record?

just as they were wrong about at least 12 baby or adult dinosaur they classified as transitional, even though they were the same species. Just as they were wrong about half a dozen variation of H Erectus they claimed were transitional, but turned out to be mere variation.

Why don't you tell us what features a fossil would need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps. Why can't you answer this question?

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationist: There are no transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds.

Evolutionist: What type of fossil are you looking for?

Creationist: You know . . . a fossil that is part bird and part dinosaur.

Evolutionist: Archaeopteryx has bird features not seen in other dinosaurs, and dinosaur features not seen in modern birds. It is part bird and part dinosaur.

Creationist: That doesn't count.

 

[46AND2]

Ok ive been just wrapping what i say with quotes. I will highlight what i have said by right clicking and dragging over text and then hit quote. This will put a quote at the beginning and the end.

So i have to just put 1 quote after what you say and not at the beginning of what i say. Then i put another quote at the begi9nning of the next bit you say but not at the end of what i say. How do you do a quote if you want to just put one like that. I only know to do it by wrapping the text. I had asked this before as i couldn't find any instructions in the how to section and wasn't sure. Will this then make my writing different to yours like you have with the straight writing and and mine is slanted. Rather then them being the same.

Believe it or not i had written a reply to what you had said earlier but i had left it for a while and then it said i couldn't post it as the token or something wasn't authenticated. I would imagine because i had left it and it timed out. I lost all my info when i reloaded the page. Oh well its not my day. I think it might be easier to just agree with you.

I would suggest not wrapping your comments in quotes at all. Just make sure [ quote ] and [ / quote ] (without spaces) are surrounding EACH of my comments that you are responding to.

So if I was replying to each paragraph individually in this post, I would have the quote tags around each of your paragraphs, then make my comments in between, say, the closing tag of the first paragraph, and the opening tag of the second paragraph.







If you want to make a quote--like if you are quotemining Darwin --then you can do it like you have been, highlighting it, then pressing the quote button from the functions above, or you can manually type the quote and /quote tags in there.

The reason your responses are stuck inside my quotes, though, except for your last one of your post, is because you are just inserting your own quote after one of my paragraphs, without closing off my quote--without typing [ / quote ] with no spaces after my words.

The reason your last comment in your post is not contained in my quote is that your response is placed after the [ / quote ] that gets automatically placed there when you hit the quote button on my post. One set of opening and closing quotes is generated automatically when you quote my post. If you want to quote individual parts of the post, you have to make sure additional tags are added in the appropriate spot.

That makes sense? It's hard to explain without being able to actually show you, and I'm too lazy to create a tutorial with visuals. Sorry. ;-)