|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
The Undeniable Science of Biology
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 07:43 |
 VicOK, good that you specify what you did not imply. But the answer WAS given in my post! It is given in the Wikipedia article. |
|||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske So now we have an evolutionist’s definition of transitional fossil: “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.” I won’t quibble over how evolutionists define “group” and whether “species” would be an acceptable replacement. I think that’s an important question though. Hopefully soon we’ll get a ballpark number on how many transitional fossils exist. Then we can look at five, determine where and when they were found, and what features cause them to be classified as transitional fossils. |
|||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske |
|||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 07:54 |
Vic |
|||||||||||||
|
How many transition fossils? Definition - "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.” So let's start with Archaeopteryx. A transition from dinosaur to bird. It has characteristics of its antecedent dinosaur ancestors and the feathers and wings of a bird. Let's take it from there. several specimens have been found; let's consider the Berlin Specimen in particular, but if you prefer to discuss a different fossil we can always move the focus. This was discovered in 1874 or 1875 on the Blumenberg near Eichstätt, Germany, by farmer Jakob Niemeyer. What comments do you have in regard to this example? |
|||||||||||||
|
@Bob You seem to be very flippant and cavalier with your misrepresentations and false assumptions, and I would rather not converse with you. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 08:00 |
Vic I see. But 'believe' here can be misinterpreted. I don't 'believe' in the theory of evolution in the same sense as somebody else believes in God. Let me specify: I am of the opinion that the current theory of evolution is quite a functional theory and the best we have to date. However, as with all scientific theories, only one piece of dependable experimental or observational discrepancy is enough to either require modification of the theory or its outright rejection. |
|||||||||||||
|
I have a suggestion It’s not fair or practical to expect Andrew yo answer multiple posts by multiple people. I’d even suggest allowing Andrew to choose his opponent between me, Shiva, Bob or? |
|||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske |
|||||||||||||
|
zorroloco 10-Sep-22, 08:03 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 10-Sep-22, 08:03.
|
|||||||||||||
|
@zorroloco Anyone else would be fine. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 08:09 |
Vic Well, that's probably because I am no specialist in that field. But I thought you weren't really thinking it so important to have the precise number, but rather whether or not there is any reliable evidence for transition fossils. The Wiki article I quoted lists six 'prominent' examples with accompanying references to what I presume is the origonal research finding them, or at least review articles in which the original work is quoted. |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 08:04 I refer you to my post 07:41. As I said there, "Please reference the post in which I made that accusation against you personally. I do not believe I have made that accusation." You have not given any reference to such a post. <Definitely not Bob. He’s repeatedly lied about what I have said> Again, you might like to reference the posts in which I've 'lied about what you have said'. <I find him simply too obnoxious to deal with.> Now THAT'S something I can plead 'guilty' to! |
|||||||||||||
|
I’m not interested in a precise number, but am interested in a ballpark number, and six and “millions” are obviously nowhere near the same ballpark. And the reason I’m interested in a ballpark number is Darwin said for his theory to be correct, the number of intermediate varieties (transitional forms) would have to be truly enormous. I’m just trying to determine if a truly enormous number of transitional fossils have been found. (Darwin’s statement was made in the context of the fossil record.) I’ll check back tonight. Gotta go do stuff |
|||||||||||||
|
@Bob “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?" “ |
|||||||||||||
|
hands and toria "Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. Paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[39] Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, logic dictates that known fossils represent only a small percentage of all life-forms that ever existed—and that each discovery represents only a snapshot of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.[40] The fossil record is very uneven and, with few exceptions, is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no fossil record.[39] The groups considered to have a good fossil record, including a number of transitional fossils between traditional groups, are the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the brachiopods and some groups of arthropods.[41]" Extrapolate what you wish... |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 08:30 |
Vic I am sorry if I had misunderstood you, but I genuinely thought that 'a handful' of well-researched examples would be sufficient to support the theory. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 08:32 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Is the Big Bang theory wrong? Are we rethinking the Big Bang? On this explainer, Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Chuck Nice break down Big Bang skepticism and what’s going on at the frontier of astrophysics. ------------ Give me a little space here. Big Bang theory is very relevant to this evolutionary theory. The basic theory of BB is that scientists found out the observable Universe is expanding. I think Hubble is the first one to notice it by observing the red shift of the far away galaxies. So, they theorize that like a rubber band, it cannot expand forever and will shrink again to a single point or nothing. BB theory appers to be very solid until JWST sees at the edge of unuverse, faraway galaxies which are as big and old as nearby galaxies The foundation and basic theory of BB is that the universe was born out of a single point or nothing. Here comes my theory now. God could do the same thing. He created a powerful BB out of nothing. Once the universe is formed with galaxies, stars, planets, etc. Life started on hospitable planets and evolution took over. Please enjoy astrophysist Tyson's narrative in the above youtube link. |
|||||||||||||
|
Ace Ok. Certainly possible. And far more likely, imo, than any religion. Likely impossible to disprove. I completely fail to see how the “ Big Bang theory is very relevant to this evolutionary theory.” This belongs in it’s own thread…. This one is already too diffuse |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 10:02 |
Thumper 08-Sep-22, 22:16 Transitional fossils <For example, there is quite good genetic data suggesting that the hippopotamus is closely related to the whales.> What does "closely related to" really mean?> Sorry, I only saw your post now. In this particular case 'closely related' means that the DNA of hippos (among all land animals) is the closest to the DNA of whales. 'Close' in terms of the sequences of DNA bases. |
|||||||||||||
|
Zorro |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 10:19 |
Ace |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 8:25 I can see how my words, typed in haste, could too easily be taken to mean what you say. For that, I am sincerely sorry, I apologise, and I retract that interpretation. I should have taken time and care to be clearer. I do NOT maintain that you are distorting Scripture, nor lying. In another thread I am on record as saying that I take you to be sincere. My meaning at that time was that the sources you appear to rely upon have a habit of bending Scripture to suit their own agenda, rather than genuinely seeking to follow Scripture's agenda. I meant to warn you against following those manipulative sources. If you read the full passage I referenced in Isaiah you will see that the lie in that verse is not what the man says, but what he accepts without thinking critically about it. I saw you to be in danger of this trap. This is why I said I was not overly concerned about your anti-evolution stance, but about you becoming a pawn of those who misuse Scripture. Again, my apology for the offence my words have caused. |
|||||||||||||
|
I prefer NOT to use creationist websites to question or criticize the theory of evolution and would much rather use information from skeptics who are non-religious and scientists. Those sadly are much harder to find - not because such people don’t exist, but because they don’t put forward or publicize what they believe are flaws with the theory. Some do, though, and I should more diligently seek them out. I guess it’s just laziness on my part to use creationist websites. The search for the truth of a given question, especially one with so many ramifications as whether the theory of evolution is true, is not easy. Contradictory information is everywhere. I think, and I plan to tell zorro this, that the number of legitimate transitional fossils (even a ballpark number) may never be settled in my mind because I will always wonder if the classification of those fossils is just and accurate. And I don’t have the expertise, motivation or time to try to determine on my own and to my own satisfaction that the classification of a fossil as a transitional fossil was justified. But maybe I will if we look deeply enough into the examples zorroloco cited. I respect and admire Stalhandske’s professional accomplishments (as well as yours,) but I think sometimes you and he have an idealistic view that all scientists welcome challenges to the theory of evolution and, in Stalhandske’s case, that government officials always obey the law. I don’t think either is true. Scientists have complained about the lack of curiousity and scrutiny of Darwin’s theory, and, in the other matter, FBI officials have been found to have broken the law and the United States’ border laws are not enforced. But that’s getting too far afield. I guess the bottom line is I don’t trust scientists on a matter that is fraught with political or ideological agendas. If a scientist says he doesn’t believe or doubts the validity of the theory of evolution, he or she is essentially saying God exists because no other “Godless” theory exists for the species we see today (and I have a hard time imagining a plausible one that could exist.) That scientist who doesn’t believe or doubts the theory of evolution is essentially telling his atheistic colleagues that God exists. Accepting that is a huge hurdle for a lot of people. And I know some (even many) people believe in both God and the theory of evolution. But the idea that God created this vast universe with so much inanimate matter, but when it came to life, just created one single-celled organism and plopped it in the middle of the ocean just seems absurd to me. Anyway, don’t mean to ramble lol |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 19:41 Personally, I don't see how the Universe could come into existence without there being SOMETHING outside it. Whether the mechanism for it is evolution, direct creation or an email order from some trans-dimensional Amazon service, that still doesn't answer the question of First Cause. That gives me great freedom in examining all ideas critically, in so far as my competence permits. But I certainly admit to being impatient , even brutal, with what I see to be obfuscation. Yes, arrogance is one of my more prominent besetting sins, and I need to be slapped down regularly! I can be very obnoxious. Nor do I believe that God "just created one single-celled organism and plopped it in the middle of the ocean". Of course I have no evidence for this, but my suspicion is that God is bigger than we can imagine; that God is boundlessly creative and the Universe is full of life in ways more diverse than our minds can comprehend. And that the Ultimate Purpose is as Eph. 1:10 says, "to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ." That is why the physical and chemical laws of the Universe are so amenable to life. Anyway, one day we will know. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Sep-22, 21:06 |
Vic 'The government officials always obey the law'. I have to admit that I don't understand this statement, but it bothers me because I am specifically mentioned. The fact is - as a scientist all my life (77 years) - that sincere scientists do welcome (or at least do accept) challenges to ANY theory, including that of evolution! |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 11-Sep-22, 06:23 |
Vic <I don’t know that that addresses why evolutionists in this club alone think the number ranges from six (but could be higher) to “millions.” > For the general reader, this is about the number of transition fossils. Darwin predicted that there must be a very high number, and I think present day specialists in the field agree. The way I see it this does not mean that that huge number has been found! The Wiki articleI cited explains how fossils are sufficiently preserved only if the organism has a 'hard shell' or 'bones' (or the like). Soft organisms simply aren't preserved (except in very special cases). Now, it was me who quoted six transition fossils, but that was a simple citation of 'most prominent cases' in the Wiki article. There is no reason to compare it with vocih's estimate of 'millions', which is based on the theoretical prediction but supported by the other Wiki article he cited. I see a very good reason for your focus on transition fossils, as this is one key prediction that dates all the way back to Darwin. However, and apart from the problems I just described, there are other 'complications'. Based on Darwin's prediction some creationists think that we should find fossils in statu nascendi, i.e. a kind of 'jump' from one species to another. I am not saying you 'demand' that of the theory, but some creationists do. Over the years it has become clear that this is not how evolution works. Instead, the 'evolution of one species from another' starts with an ancestor common to both, for example the latest common ancestor (LUCA: last universal common ancestor) of apes and humans. This species then evolves further in different branches, one of which eventually leading to apes, the other one to humans. Perhaps I am 'preaching the obvious' and you know all this? |
|||||||||||||
|
Number of Transitions So here is my question. Darwin notes there should be hundreds (not millions) separating hyracotherium from modern horses. After all, how many steps does it truly take? Most likely the first few transition species would have been able to interbreed with both precursors and descendants. They just didn't all that much, for the same reason humans and Neandertal and Denisovans interbred, but not terribly frequently. Andrew would be delighted to discover with a genetic test that he harbors a small percent of Neandertal DNA. I likely have even more than he does. The only "pure" strain of humanity known so far is a small population from sub Saharan Africa--Neandertal genes never made it back to that cradle of humanity. Oops, forgot to ask the burning question. We count six (or as I noted, probably closer to twelve). Why are there any? If God did not want us to acknowledge the instinct likelihood evolution must have occurred, why create ANY fossil horse lineage? Why not have modern draft horse bones buried with blackened saddles as though scorched by fire breathing dragons mingled with the bones of a winged apatosaurus and half eaten princess? In real science, we find specimens of hyracotherium (named for its supposed relationship to the hyrax--which is clearly and obviously wrong now--an original mistake) in geologic strata of a certain age, but never earlier. None exist today, nor have we unearthed any specimens more recent than multiple millions of years. The hyrax is actually more closely related to the elephant, which has its own fascinating series of transition fossils. Hyracotherium have been found in the western US and in Europe. ALL the skeletons found so far date back to the Eocene, hence the more appropriate name, eohippus, which means "dawn horse." The Eocene was the first period of the Cenozoic, the age of flowering plants (anthophyta). We do not find much in the way of fossilized grasses until well into the Eocene, some ten million years beyond the great dinosaur demise. The earliest grass begins to dominate, more as it does now, roughly coincident with the origin of hyracotherium. The hyracotherium teeth are much more like those of modern horses than they are of hyraxes, though these beasts clearly did not forage on grass the way modern horses do. If you have ever fed a horse an apple, you know they ate capable of chewing more than just tough grass fiber. But the modern horse is well adapted to a diet of material that did not exist throughout the entire Paleozoic or Mesozoic. One final thought, Zorro advises against ganging up on Andrew, and he has a good point. Thumper is here to defend Andrew's views. If Andrew needs more help perhaps he should enlist more creationists. Put out a call for folks force fed creationist theory in home school, or wherever they are found. In my personal past discourse I have found many people who, like myself, had been staunch creationists but were compelled by the vast treasure trove of physical evidence that evolution was the far superior theory for the origin of species. I have run across extremely few folks who initially thought evolution was correct but later switched to creationism because they believe the evidence for the sudden simultaneous appearance of all species better fit our fossil record. These folks are less common than flat earthers, which on GK has been defended by Frank and I'm unaware of any other. But back to the burning, saddle scorched question: Why are there ANY horse transitionals? |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
