|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
The Undeniable Science of Biology
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Thumper 20:40 and 21:06Absolutely correct! So why do we find insects in all layers from the Devonian onwards, but whale fossils only in the much-more-recent Cenozoic? Shouldn't whales be among the lowest, because a dead whale would soon be stripped of its fat and muscle by scavengers, so the remaining bones would settle out very quickly. We also notice that even among animals of roughly the same characteristics of weight, bone mass, etc, there is a very strict demarcation in the geologic records of when each appears. Hard to believe that they were contemporaries of each other. I suppose some sort of 'Progressive Creation' theory might be proposed, but what would be the mechanism for that (apart from repeated supernatural intervention)? And such a mechanism would seem to contradict the most common form of Creationism, which is largely modelled upon a literal reading of Genesis. Of course, there comes a point where Progressive Creationism becomes indistinguishable from evolution. Instead of a new species taking (say) a million years to evolve, let's just say a new species is created after a million years. It would be impossible for a paleontologist to tell the difference, specially if the new species was created using the same biochemical, genetic, etc raw material and design as the earlier species. Creationism deliberately designed to be indistinguishable from Evolution! 21:06 I'm sure we all understand the concept of evolution as taught in primary school in its simplified form. Fewer people have kept in touch with developments since school days, or understand the more advanced versions. |
|||||||||||||
|
Bob Nice dig with the 'schoolboy errors' quip though. |
|||||||||||||
|
Bob |
|||||||||||||
|
Sorry guys I’m not willing to have my legitimate questions go unanswered and instead be inundated with reams of copy-and-paste. Take care. |
|||||||||||||
|
Andrew Lol You have the perseverance of a year old. But suit yourself. A few hours reading seems a small price to make sure what you believe is accurate, but we have different priorities I guess. Peace |
|||||||||||||
|
But I think it would have been far more productive - and respectful of people’s time - to simply identify them by name, when and where they were found, and briefly state the features that cause them to be classified as transitional fossils. I don’t consider posting reams of copy and paste to be a serious or productive effort at discussion. I have done far more than a few hours of reading on this subject in my lifetime but I’m not going to continue in a discussion where legitimate questions are ignored and instead reams of copy-and-paste are posted. It’s too unfocused. |
|||||||||||||
|
Look at the horse |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Eohippus |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 04:16 I have already said that I will work with your proposed definition for the purposes of this discussion. <I’m not willing to have my legitimate questions go unanswered> What questions? An inventory of how many 'transitional fossils' there are? I have already said 'plenty', with the number constantly increasing. Zorro provided you with a list of the equine chain and I have listed Archaeopteryx as typical of the avian chain. Now you have clarified by asking for five examples. I refer you to eight examples already provided by Zorro in the equine line; Eohippus, orohippus epihippus, medohippus, miohippus kalabahippus, parahippus and merychippus. He also gives whale transitional fossils, and Shiva has provided links to others. More than the five you asked for! So how have we not answered your questions? What is missing is your reasoned rebuttal of comments by others. Simply saying 'I disagree' without explaining WHY you disagree is not how a scientific hypothesis is critiqued. But that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I'd like to know WHY you hold that opinion and discuss the reasoning employed to get from the evidence to that opinion, but if you would rather not, then that's fine too. I have laid out my reasoning, which I will summarise as 'Evolutionary theory is a better fit with the evidence available than any alternative that I am aware of.' I'm still eager for you to propose that better alternative, with your evidence and reasoning to support it. So far you have tentatively proposed two options. One is to refer to Genesis, which (despite it's profundity and insights into other questions) has no value as a scientific theory. The other is "I don't know"; and that was given in a way that suggested that you would rather NOT know, if knowing means accepting evolution as a working hypothesis. Gather up your courage, Vic, and follow the evidence wherever it leads and no matter how much emotional pain in might cause. If you come out the other end still rejecting evolution, then that's fine too. But be honest with yourself as you do so. I've personally been through the mincer of having my beliefs shredded off my bones so I could discover deeper, richer beliefs, and I know that pain. It is worth it for the reward. |
|||||||||||||
|
answersingenesis.org Yes, I’m doing what I objected to. I find going down this rabbit hole to not be as interesting as it once was. Maybe it would be if we could settle on a definition of transitional fossils and how many exist. Take your horse example. How many transitional fossils in the purported horse evolution have been found? The problem I have with much of this is I don’t know how much is based on actual evidence and how much is based on conjecture. I think if the fossil record is used to demonstrate horse evolution, we should know how many transitional fossils exist in horse evolution, when and where they were found and why they’re considered transitional fossils in the evolution of horses. Does no one catalogue this stuff? Does such information exist and where can I find it? |
|||||||||||||
|
Drosophila melanogaster & Nylonase Bacteria Failed? We took a population of bacteria that were incapable of digesting nylon, a completely artificial substance, and places them in an environment rich in nylon. We preserved periodic samples of the bacteria. Ultimately a variation of bacteria evolved to possess this attribute. We could compare populations to determine the precise gene responsible for the novel trait. It was absent in the ancestral population, but present in the evolved group. Using cutting enzymes to remove the gene resulted in bacteria once again incapable of digesting nylon, demonstrating we had indeed isolated the gene which expressed the protein conferring this novel trait. As for fruit flies, in Hawaii a variation of fruit fly evolved incapable of cross breeding with the original strain--evidence for speciation. Ultimately we anticipate accumulation of variations to increase the disparity, which is what the fossil record most clearly and abundantly indicates. |
|||||||||||||
|
@Bob I asked for an evolutionist’s definition of “transitional fossil.” Not for you to agree with my definition for the sake of argument. I asked for examples of transitional fossils, when and where they were found, and what features they have that cause them to be classified as transitional fossils. I didn’t ask for reams of copy-and-paste that I’m expected to wade through as though I’m looking for a dime on the beach that may or may not be there. I think direct responses to direct questions work best and are respectful of people’s time. |
|||||||||||||
|
Andrew You’re just using the exact number as away to avoid the real issue. Please address the fact that orohippus epihippus, mesohippus, miohippus kalabahippus, parahippus and merychippus are transitional between eohippus and modern equus. With clear observable transitional features. |
|||||||||||||
|
Nylon-eating bacteria If you’re interested… www.icr.org |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 5:38 I'm familiar with this Creationist objection. It turns on how to best translate the Hebrew 'min' in Genesis chapter 1. You have said that definitions are important, and I agree. Yet, I have not seen a settled consensus among Creationists about precisely what 'min' means in modern scientific taxonomy. So when you say 'species' in that post above, exactly what do you mean? I admit that I see a red flag being waved at me here. I have a huge resentment when I see the Scriptures being misrepresented, and your question has triggered the memory of gross dishonesty by people who have used 'scriptural' arguments in the past. A century ago, it was routinely claimed that no species has ever been observed to change into a different species. Later, different lines of fruit flies were observed to no longer produce viable offspring when cross-bred, even though the flies were still fertile when breeding within their own lines. This would have usually been interpreted to mean they were not the sames species, as Thumper said in an earlier post. Suddenly 'min' was interpreted by anti-evolutionists more broadly to mean 'kind', not 'species'. These fruit-fly changes were said to NOT be speciation, but extremes within the one 'kind', so extreme that sterility was a symptom. This was just one example of actual, observed speciation being 'explained away'. Based on the verbal contortions I have read, I genuinely expect that there are some who are so determined to overthrow the concept of evolution that the meaning of this word 'min' would be further expanded. Any future events that biologists would otherwise call 'speciation' will be defined by them as NOT as evolution, but as an expansion or mutation within the one 'min'. Some Creationists argue that even gross morphological differences between transition fossils are not evidence of species differences, but variation within the one 'kind'. Therefore, these are not 'transition fossils' at all, but simply extreme deformities or mutations from the normal range of one 'kind'. If it were possible to stack thousands of 'transition fossils' of both mice and elephants back to their last common ancestor, such advocates would say that this simply proves that there is no such thing as evolution. "They are both mammals, so they are both the one 'min'." If evolution is wrong, then fine! I can live with that! But don't misrepresent the Scriptures to do so! The whole concept of 'holiness' in the Old Testament is related to 'separation'. Thus the emphasis of animals 'in their own kind' is to emphasise the holiness of the original creation. It shows how sheep can be kosher, but pigs are not. The lines of 'kind' are rigid and unbreakable in this paradigm of holiness. 'Kind' is a metaphor for 'holy'. But like all metaphors, it should only be used in its intended context. It falls apart if used for another purpose. This is why I don't care if people believe in a literal Genesis One, but I object strenuously if they claim that their literal interpretation of it is the ONLY acceptable interpretation. In doing so, they make the text all about biology, not about holiness. Thus, they detract from the Scriptures. |
|||||||||||||
|
“Millions” as stated by vocihc is not a ballpark number because it ranges from 2 million to 999,999 million. It was apparently also unsourced; didn’t see it in the enormous Wiki entry he cited as the source, though I admit I only scanned several potential subheads. I can certainly address your horse query later today. I’m willing to answer questions but that will rapidly dissolve if my questions continue to go unanswered and if what I’ve said continues to be misrepresented (I never asked for an exact number of transitional fossils and indeed said a ballpark number would be fine) and my motive in asking questions continues to be lied about. |
|||||||||||||
|
@Bob Having to respond to multiple evolutionists posting multiple times a day and posting long reams of copy-and-paste while largely ignoring my questions is not worthwhile (at least for me) and especially so when I’m misrepresented and my motives in asking questions is lied about. |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 6:18 and 6:38 So I am now doing the wrong thing by agreeing with you? What's wrong with your definition, that I shouldn't adopt it? <The rebuttal is still the same. If you’re interested… www.icr.org> I can recall Creationist literature endlessly telling me that mutations are harmful. That adding information requires intelligent input. But that changed once non-harmful mutations arose, with effective speciation such as in the fruit-fly example. Now Creationist organisations are admitting that spontaneous mutations can change an organism's fitness to survive in new environments; but this isn't 'evolution', it's just 'micro-evolution', or expression of greater range in the one species. This is merely playing with words. As one claim after another is disproved, the dogmatic line remains as hard as ever, but just gets moved a little bit further back. "We are not retreating, we are just clarifying" as the certainties march backwards. As I said in an earlier post, hang on to your anti-evolutionary delusions if you want; but don't misrepresent Scripture as you do so. Fight on scientific grounds if you can; and when you realise you have no scientific ammunition, have the spiritual courage to say as in Isaiah 44:20 "He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" |
|||||||||||||
|
Claiming I’ve misrepresented Scripture is a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? Can you cite a single instance when I’ve done that? And I want an evolutionist’s definition of transitional fossil because that will tell me a great deal about whether purported transitional fossils are actually that. |
|||||||||||||
|
@L_S |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 07:15 |
Vic <Until someone can define “transitional fossil,” give me a ballpark number on how many exist and perhaps identify five with where and when they were found and why they’re considered transitional fossils, I’m going to bow out of this discussion. > When discussing a subject it is indeed crucial that all discussants are aware of and agree on the definition of that subject. This is why I started by quoting a Wikipedia article entitled "Traditional Fossil". To help the reader I copied and pasted the first explanatory paragraphs of that article. I don't understand why you spoke badly about that procedure. In your recent posts (above) you yourself gave several links to various articles. The Wikipedia article I posted a link to gives a pretty good definition of the subject, and also discusses several examples of cases of such transitional fossils and the research behind each of them. Finally, in your criticism of evoution theory it was you who posed this question of transitional fossils as the most important one, asking to know how many have been found, clearly with the implicit meaning that there aren't any. The Wikipedia article first defines the concept and goes on giving several examples of it. If you are not satisfied with that, I think it would be only fair (and polite) to explain why. |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 6:54 < how do evolutionists define transitional fossils> I adopted your definition. <and how many are there> Very many, but I don't have an exact number. That will largely depend on which specific fossils you would accept under your definition. I said that more fossils are being found every year. <and the third question (a request for examples of transitional fossils, when and where they were found and why they’re considered transitional fossils) was met with reams of copy-and-paste.> I did not give you reams of cut-and-paste. I mentioned Archaeopteryx, and referred you to eight other names provided by Zorro as single names, and others also provided further examples. Links were given so you could obtain as much or as little expert information as you chose to read. If you object to being answered in this way, then I am left wondering how you would prefer to be answered. By pages of typing by an amateur, or by summaries given by experts? So all your questions were answered in good faith, with as much supporting background as you might choose to read or choose to ignore. How can you say your questions are ignored? |
|||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske I’ll go back and look for your post. |
|||||||||||||
|
@Bob |
|||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.” |
|||||||||||||
|
Stal 07:15 I suspected that he would dispute the existence of any such 'transitional fossils', asserting that all examples given were no more than 'variation within kind'. I've seen that trick before, but I wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt. I'm still prepared to accept the strict text of his 'definition', but his more recent posts are making it clear that he has no intention of accepting anything as valid evidence unless it is interpreted through his own prism. This was why I mentioned the possibility of a continuous chain connecting mice and elephants back to their last common ancestor, to argue that mice and elephants are the same 'kind'. A continuous record of slow changes would, by definition, not have a clear, obvious and unarguable 'speciation event'. Thus, evolution to a new species is defined out of existence because it can't be shown to happen in a single generation. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 07:32 |
Vic I am not myself an evolutionist, my field of speciality is biophysics and molecular biology, but I have no reason to question that definition, which refers to a book apparently written by specialists in the field (reference #1 in the Wiki article). |
|||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske <<Finally, in your criticism of evoution theory it was you who posed this question of transitional fossils as the most important one,>> I never said it was the most important one. It was simply a starting-off point and I chose it because I remembered how unproductive discussions on it were in the past. I was using it as an example of why I was reluctant to wade into this debate yet again. <<asking to know how many have been found, clearly with the implicit meaning that there aren't any.>> I implied no such thing. I asked how many there are. That’s it. And I’ve never gotten an answer, even after saying a ballpark number would be fine. (I don’t consider “millions” to be an answer because it’s far too vague and, as far as I know, is unsourced as well.) |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 7:20 Please reference the post in which I made that accusation against you personally. I do not believe I have made that accusation. The closest I came was in my 07:03 post, when I urged you NOT to do so; as so many others have done, some of whom (such as the ICR) you appear to reference in your support. If you assure me that you do not endorse such, then I most sincerely apologise for any misunderstanding or offence I have caused. I will most assuredly concede that it is a most offensive thing, to be falsely accused of promoting the misrepresentation of Scripture like the ICR does. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
