Give your best "transitional form"

[PsychoSarah]

Do I dare post the video of the lungfish, the fish that walks on land? Seriously, there is a species of fish right now that can breathe air for roughly an hour at a time, goes on land for food and walks with its fins (actually, it looks more like rowing) and then returns to the water. They even lay their eggs outside of the water. They are so weird, but they are pretty neat.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Fooled by Nature - Lungfish - YouTube my bad, it can breathe air much longer than I thought. You can check all you like, this is a real creature. If you really wanted to investigate, you could actually find one for yourself and see it with your own eyes.

 

[LoricaLady]

What do you mean by 'turning into'? Surely you realize that a fossil is dead, it can't do anything. You're asking for something that evolutionary theory does not predict exists.

Either you are playing games, which is way common with evol. defenders when asked uncomfortable Qs, or you don't understand the basic issues. Of course no one is saying the dead fossil turned into anything. However, if you actually understand what evolutionary theory is saying, it is constantly pointing to dead fossils and saying that their descendants
"transitioned", moving onward and upward on Darwin's so called Tree of Life.

For example we are shown a fossil of something called Tiktaalik and told its descendants turned into tetrapods. It is simply a lobe finned fish, not much different from any other kind of lobe finned fish. But we are told, based on "looks like...similar homology..." i.e. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation Logical Fallacy and other logical fallacies that it is a sure thing, bonafide "transition" to tetrapods. Do they have any ev-i-dence that its descendants were in anyway significantly different from it? Of course not.

But in evol. land, "looks like..." isn't theoretical. They put on their magic looking glasses that can see into the past and tell us what kind of offspring it had! They ignore the fact that lobe finned fish of today are not turning into tetrapods, in fact no fish anywhere are turning into tetrapods.

They have no problem with repeating themselves either. For example they used to tell us that another lobe finned fish, i.e. coelacanth, transitioned into being a fish. Through...its...descendants...of...course. Tons of rave reviews were accepted into the hallowed ranks of the peer review process. Problem. One day somebody found some liiiive coelacanths out in the ocean. Uh oh. They were just fish. You can see them swimming on some Youtube vids.

Actually I wrote those last paragraphs only partly for you.

I suspect you are never going to answer my Q at the end of my first post to you. I feel sure that if you do and I ask you more Qs that you will dodge them and try to change the subject, with the usual excuses. There may be tons of verbiage, as with Loudmouth, along with the dodges.

But prove me wrong. Answer the Q and I'll respond. Keep trying to change the subject and, sorry, I have better things to do with my time and you will have to be ignored.

 

[Jro]

Either you are playing games, which is way common with evol. defenders when asked uncomfortable Qs, or you don't understand the basic issues. Of course no one is saying the dead fossil turned into anything. However, if you actually understand what evolutionary theory is saying, it is constantly pointing to dead fossils and saying that their descendants
"transitioned", moving onward and upward on Darwin's so called Tree of Life.

Actually, that's not what the accepted definition of transitional is. Transitional implies possessing features of both ancestral and derived groups, it does not imply ancestry.

I suspect you are never going to answer my Q at the end of my first post to you. I feel sure that if you do and I ask you more Qs that you will dodge them and try to change the subject, with the usual excuses. There may be tons of verbiage, as with Loudmouth, along with the dodges.

But prove me wrong. Answer the Q and I'll respond. Keep trying to change the subject and, sorry, I have better things to do with my time and you will have to be ignored.

Why the hostility dude? Not trying to change the subject, it's just a complicated question and I want to be sure we're on the same page.

Transitional form? The echidna. It's a mammal that lays eggs. Possesses both ancestral and derived features.

 

[PsychoSarah]

My lungfish video, which depicts a currently living fish that walks on land, also works. And it does use its fins for locomotion, it doesn't slither.

 

[LoricaLady]

Fooled by Nature - Lungfish - YouTube my bad, it can breathe air much longer than I thought. You can check all you like, this is a real creature. If you really wanted to investigate, you could actually find one for yourself and see it with your own eyes.

Are you saying the lungish is a transition? Check out evolutionary literature on that on Google. See how many evolutionists are actually saying it is a transition. Name one. Not one who hedges with "might be...could be...maybe...likely...probably..." either. Name an actual evolution believing scientist who says the lungish is a "transition." I don't think you will find any such thing.

You yourself said it. You said it is a species of fish. That's what it is. You have....faith....based on evolutionary theory, that somehow some way, some day its descendants are going to turn into....frogs?

Sorry, it would need far more changes that those you see for that.

I already went over the subject of how fish can use their fins in unusual ways, as with the so called walking catfish and the so called flying fish. No one is calling them transitions. No one, even evolutionists, are saying their fins are turning into feet or wings. As far as air, it is not uncommon for fish to use air from the surface, for examples Neons suck air there. But they aren't developing air breathing lungs.

Give me the name of the scientist I requested with your reference to check on Google. Pick a true science site, not something like Wiki, where anyone can post anything, or something like Talk Origins which is not really based on a science magazine or university but is just spouting off its spin.

Before you believe, before you defend what you believe to others, do your research.

 

[bhsmte]

subscribing for the entertainment value.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, evolution doesn't happen fast enough in large animals like that for us to observe the transition of species. However, it does prove that a fish could evolve to walk on land and be in water, because the creature exists. You aren't going to get any closer than that to getting what you define as a "transitional" creature, even though it has been explained several times that a transitional creature is just a creature with characteristics of two or more species that exists in between the time frame that said species existed in. But if you want, you can look to bacteria, they evolve fast enough that literally you could observe the gradual change, so long as you isolate the bacterial population for study and, say, turn up,the heat in the container slowly, you will end up with a new species of bacteria that have a much higher resistance to heat than the ancestor bacteria, probably within a year.

 

[Jro]

No, evolution doesn't happen fast enough in large animals like that for us to observe the transition of species.

This isn't true.

Still just a lizard – Pharyngula

 

[LoricaLady]

Actually, that's not what the accepted definition of transitional is. Transitional implies possessing features of both ancestral and derived groups, it does not imply ancestry.



Why the hostility dude? Not trying to change the subject, it's just a complicated question and I want to be sure we're on the same page.

Transitional form? The echidna. It's a mammal that lays eggs. Possesses both ancestral and derived features.

You say the echidna is a transition. What evidence do you have that it hasn't always been just what it looks like, an echidna. "Possesses traits of" puts us right back to "looks like....similar homology." Again, sharks look like dolphins, birds bat and bees fly. Dolphins and bats have sonar. Tobaccos and people share the same number of chromosomes. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fallacy. You are also using the Single Cause Fallacy and the Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison.

That is, if you see any similarity, however remote, why there can only be one explanation. Evolution of course.

Give me your data to show that the echidna's ancestors or descendants were ever significantly different from those seen today. I believe you may find some of larger size, as gigantism was common in the distant past, but that is all you will be able to present as evidence for any significant changes. With no evidence there is no science. When presumptions are presented as fact we have not science but pseudo science.

I'd like you to answer another Q. Find an evolution believing scientist from a true science site. Not Talk Origins which is not based on a true science magazine or university source, not Wiki which can come from any source on the planet. Find an actual scientific source, a scientific magazine or university where they will say that echidna is a transitions without the use of the words "maybe...probably....likely...it seems...must have....could have....millions of [untestable, unverifiable] years ago". I.e. find something not based on theorizing only.

Give me the name of the scientist and how to find his or her quotes through a Google reference. It is my impression that you will find no such person willing to state categorically that the echidna is a transitional form. But if you find one, back to Q #1. What evidence are they giving you that the echidna has ever been or ever will be anything than one of nature's many, many anomalies, from start to finish?

 

[46AND2]

This isn't true.

Still just a lizard – Pharyngula

I don't particularly like this example. Cecal valves have been observed in other lizards, indicating that this is just the expression of a previously recessed gene. Certainly, it had to evolve at some point, but I don't buy that this is rapid, novel evolution in action.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are they capable of producing fertile offspring with the original lizards? If they are, then it isn't a new species, just a new variety. Even within the same species, there can be significant variation. But just saying. You have indeed proven that significant change can occur in a remarkably short time frame.

 

[LoricaLady]

No, evolution doesn't happen fast enough in large animals like that for us to observe the transition of species. However, it does prove that a fish could evolve to walk on land and be in water, because the creature exists. You aren't going to get any closer than that to getting what you define as a "transitional" creature, even though it has been explained several times that a transitional creature is just a creature with characteristics of two or more species that exists in between the time frame that said species existed in. But if you want, you can look to bacteria, they evolve fast enough that literally you could observe the gradual change, so long as you isolate the bacterial population for study and, say, turn up,the heat in the container slowly, you will end up with a new species of bacteria that have a much higher resistance to heat than the ancestor bacteria, probably within a year.

I went over bacteria a few posts ago. Bacteria stay bacteria. That's the evidence from the so called Cambrian times to now. I went over the fact that a new species does not show evolution. More than once.

You are not bothering to do the research on the lung fish. If you don't care any more than that, perhaps this is a waste of time for us both. I am repeating myself over and over and you are evading science and logic based Qs. You can do far better than that Sarah. But I won't know as this will be my last post to you. If you haven't "gotten it" by now, and you have not, I still have hope that you will in the future. IF you do your research and learn to think using YOUR mind, and YOUR common sense.

Bye!

 

[TillICollapse]

Are you saying the lungish is a transition? Check out evolutionary literature on that on Google. See how many evolutionists are actually saying it is a transition. Name one. Not one who hedges with "might be...could be...maybe...likely...probably..." either. Name an actual evolution believing scientist who says the lungish is a "transition." I don't think you will find any such thing.

You yourself said it. You said it is a species of fish. That's what it is. You have....faith....based on evolutionary theory, that somehow some way, some day its descendants are going to turn into....frogs?

Sorry, it would need far more changes that those you see for that.

I already went over the subject of how fish can use their fins in unusual ways, as with the so called walking catfish and the so called flying fish. No one is calling them transitions. No one, even evolutionists, are saying their fins are turning into feet or wings. As far as air, it is not uncommon for fish to use air from the surface, for examples Neons suck air there. But they aren't developing air breathing lungs.

Give me the name of the scientist I requested with your reference to check on Google. Pick a true science site, not something like Wiki, where anyone can post anything, or something like Talk Origins which is not really based on a science magazine or university but is just spouting off its spin.

Before you believe, before you defend what you believe to others, do your research.

Okay ... first off, I'm not versed in evolutionary theory, b/c to be honest, it's not a topic that often interests me. I'm also not versed in the various creationary interpretations for somewhat the same reason. In other words, I am generally more interested in other areas of study. So I'm a *casual reader*. So my qualifier in all that I'm saying here, is that I'm not defending or attacking any specific POV. I'm a casual reader, with casual knowledge. I know whose in the Super Bowl, but I probably won't watch it because I just don't care that much ... something along those lines

Having said that, and going almost entirely off of what I'm reading here in this thread between the various sides ...

I gather that a transitional form is one that has characteristics of what the average laymen would consider different species of animals. A reptile with feathers, a mammal with gills, etc. Based on what the evolutionists are saying here, their existence doesn't necessarily mean they predict what they will become later ... yes ? Evolutionary theory only predicts they will exist in some form between groups. In other words, a dinosaur with feathers may exist at some point ... but may not "become anything else", in other words.

What you are saying, is that any creature that appears to be a transitional animal "is what it is". In other words, a dinosaur with feathers is just a dinosaur with feathers. It doesn't mean it's a transition between reptiles and birds, "it is what it is". Once a dino with feathers, always a dino with feathers. It won't eventually become a stork, in other words. Yes ?

So when I look at an archaeopteryx, what would you say it was ? How did it originate ? Or this lungfish ? Remember I'm a laymen ... I'm asking for your input, not your stance so I can attack it. I'm asking questions to understand the sides.

Now ... one who supports evolutionary theory, how did the archaeopteryx originate ?

ETA: Almost forgot ... to the OP again, are you saying that a creature such as Australopithecus afarensis is to hominids, what chihuahuas and cocker spaniels are to wolves ? Essentially ?

 

[46AND2]

Okay ... first off, I'm not versed in evolutionary theory, b/c to be honest, it's not a topic that often interests me. I'm also not versed in the various creationary interpretations for somewhat the same reason. In other words, I am generally more interested in other areas of study. So I'm a *casual reader*. So my qualifier in all that I'm saying here, is that I'm not defending or attacking any specific POV. I'm a casual reader, with casual knowledge. I know whose in the Super Bowl, but I probably won't watch it because I just don't care that much ... something along those lines

Having said that, and going almost entirely off of what I'm reading here in this thread between the various sides ...

I gather that a transitional form is one that has characteristics of what the average laymen would consider different species of animals. A reptile with feathers, a mammal with gills, etc. Based on what the evolutionists are saying here, their existence doesn't necessarily mean they predict what they will become later ... yes ? Evolutionary theory only predicts they will exist in some form between groups. In other words, a dinosaur with feathers may exist at some point ... but may not "become anything else", in other words.

What you are saying, is that any creature that appears to be a transitional animal "is what it is". In other words, a dinosaur with feathers is just a dinosaur with feathers. It doesn't mean it's a transition between reptiles and birds, "it is what it is". Once a dino with feathers, always a dino with feathers. It won't eventually become a stork, in other words. Yes ?

So when I look at an archaeopteryx, what would you say it was ? How did it originate ? Or this lungfish ? Remember I'm a laymen ... I'm asking for your input, not your stance so I can attack it. I'm asking questions to understand the sides.

Now ... one who supports evolutionary theory, how did the archaeopteryx originate ?

In the same manner a wolf became a dog (with the exception of selection being natural instead of artificial) , but over a longer time frame. The argument about transition fossil not being ancestral is due to the fact that we have no idea whether any particular fossil species even had descendants, lacking DNA analysis.

A transitional fossil COULD be ancestral, but it is not necessary. The fossil COULD be a cousin of the line that actually produced an extant species.

Obviously, there certainly would have to be ancestral species, but nothing guarantees that these species were preserved in the fossil record.

Make sense? It's kind of a difficult concept to explain.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I went over bacteria a few posts ago. Bacteria stay bacteria. That's the evidence from the so called Cambrian times to now. I went over the fact that a new species does not show evolution. More than once.

You are not bothering to do the research on the lung fish. If you don't care any more than that, perhaps this is a waste of time for us both. I am repeating myself over and over and you are evading science and logic based Qs. You can do far better than that Sarah. But I won't know as this will be my last post to you. If you haven't "gotten it" by now, and you have not, I still have hope that you will in the future. IF you do your research and learn to think using YOUR mind, and YOUR common sense.

Bye!

You limit the definition of species, thinking that evolution necessarily has to be as drastic as the difference between a fish and a bird. But, whatever, stop bothering to post here, your comments are uninteresting and insulting, and clearly you will,never give any of these ideas actual attention or respect. So leave, you never wanted to believe any different anyway, so why bother? You don't care about how evolution works, you just want it not to work. Well, I am done attempting to have meaningful communication with a disrespectful, uninformed individual such as yourself.

You are just scared, because you know, deep down inside, that the bible is just humanity's biggest ego trip, that not only places us at the center of the universe, but suggests that the whole thing was made just for us, that an almighty great and powerful being finds us worthy enough to create all of existence for us, and that we are made in the image of an all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent being. Could humanity get any more narcissistic than that?

Religion is a great way for people who felt like they have done nothing in their lives to feel special. But this over reliance on the idea of god has left you unable to establish any meaning or worth in your life without being "special" because of god, so whenever the bible is questioned, it shakes the foundation of your own self worth, so you will go to any means to discredit and destroy that which would force you to face the fact that you, nor this entire planet, are all that special.

But that doesn't change the fact, that while you are so keen to argue against that which questions the thing you base your own life's meaning on, that deep down you question it yourself, because if all the evidence didn't shake your faith, you wouldn't feel, the need to argue.

Sorry you couldn't rely on yourself to feel like your life means something, I pity your reliance on faith and pride to have self worth. You can say what you like, but every time you are at a funeral and cry, every time a death feels like a tragedy and you try to comfort yourself with some constructed afterlife, remember that you still cry, you don't cheer those people who have gone to another, much better place, you mourn the people that you know, deep down, are gone.

 

[Loudmouth]

a transitional form would be one which shows a reptile turning into a bird, a bird turning into a mammal, an ape turning into a man etc.

How would a fossil show that?

But, in spite of how evolutionary literature tries to spin it, all we see in the countless billions of fossils are fish staying fish, birds staying birds, etc.

How did you determine that? What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional?

Richard Dawkins says we came from bacteria. So, some evoltuionists will claim ev-er-y-thing is a transitional form. Problem. We have bacteria going back to the so called Cambrian era. Yes, bacteria can be fossilized. We have bacteria being studied around the clock d & n 24/7 by countless scientists and others. Uh, what ev-i-dence do we have that any bacteria anywhere at any time every has been or ever will be anything but bacteria?

If chihuahuas came from wolves, why are there still wolves?

None. But we get a spin on that truth. We're told, "Look! Bacteria are changing in response to antibiotics! See! Evolution is proven.' But...they are still just as much bacteria as they ever were.

Modern fish and humans share a common ancestor that was a vertebrate. Both modern fish and humans are still vertebrates. Are you telling me that humans and modern fish sharing a common ancestor and changing over those millions of years is not evolution simply because we are still vertebrates?

They do another spin - all of evolution is spin + logical fallacies+ presumptions presentred as fact - and tell you "Look! Bacteria have learned to eat nylon! Nylonaise bacteria prove evolution. Case closed!"

We can show that mutation that led to a new enzyme capable of digesting nylon. We can also show how bacteria with these mutations came to overpopulate vats at factories which held the subunits made to created nylon polymers. We have the production of a new enzyme through mutation which is then selected for by the environment. Can you please explain why that is not evolution?

But...they too are still just bacteria.

And we are still just vertebrates, as was our common ancestor with modern fish.

If I can put two species in the same group, does that mean evolution did not occur? Is that the extent of your refutation of evolution?

Change does happen. Evolutionists wants you to believe that all change is evolution. Then when you see change they can say, "Look! See we told you there is evolution." But change only happens within limits.

It would appear that all vertebrates, including humans, evolving from a common ancestor is within those limits.

You show me a transitional fossil that matches what is on Darwin's chart. Show me something that is turning from a fish into a tetrapod, something that shows me a bird turning into a reptile.

What features would a fossil need in order to meet your standards?

Now kindly answer my original Q. Pick anything on Darwin's so called Tree of Life and give me a so called transitional form between one "less evolved" animal on the tree and one "more evolved" animal - someting which you can defend with actual data.

That is A. afarensis. It has a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. It fits Darwin's Tree of Life perfectly.

 

[Jro]

You say the echidna is a transition. What evidence do you have that it hasn't always been just what it looks like, an echidna.

The rest of evidence backing up evolutionary theory. :]

Give me your data to show that the echidna's ancestors or descendants were ever significantly different from those seen today. I believe you may find some of larger size, as gigantism was common in the distant past, but that is all you will be able to present as evidence for any significant changes. With no evidence there is no science. When presumptions are presented as fact we have not science but pseudo science.

Sure. One of the most notable features of mammals is the specialization of their teeth. Mammals have different types of teeth, whereas most other critters have one type of tooth. For example:

http://www.smithlifescience.com/SciMammalTeeth.jpg

vs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/sci_nat_visions_of_science_/img/2.jpg

The fact is this differentiation of teeth only appears at a certain point in the fossil record. As predicted by evolutionary theory, these transitional critters possessing the teeth also possess reptilian features, much as echidnas possess reptilian features (such as their ability to lay eggs).

I'd like you to answer another Q. Find an evolution believing scientist from a true science site.

Here I am! :]

Not Talk Origins which is not based on a true science magazine or university source, not Wiki which can come from any source on the planet. Find an actual scientific source, a scientific magazine or university where they will say that echidna is a transitions without the use of the words "maybe...probably....likely...it seems...must have....could have....millions of [untestable, unverifiable] years ago". I.e. find something not based on theorizing only.

It's very obvious that it is transitional; it lays eggs. Do you agree that laying eggs is uncommon in the mammalian clade and very common in reptiles?

What evidence are they giving you that the echidna has ever been or ever will be anything than one of nature's many, many anomalies, from start to finish?

The fact is the echidna fits into a pattern of evidence that has been discovered in the fossil record and extant genetics. It is not slam dunk evidence on its own, nor is any individual transitional fossil. But we see transitions between reptiles and mammals, for example, and never transitions between birds and mammals.

 

[TillICollapse]

In the same manner a wolf became a dog (with the exception of selection being natural instead of artificial) , but over a longer time frame. The argument about transition fossil not being ancestral is due to the fact that we have no idea whether any particular fossil species even had descendants, lacking DNA analysis.

A transitional fossil COULD be ancestral, but it is not necessary. The fossil COULD be a cousin of the line that actually produced an extant species.

Obviously, there certainly would have to be ancestral species, but nothing guarantees that these species were preserved in the fossil record.

Make sense? It's kind of a difficult concept to explain.

Yes I think I'm following you. Correct me if my understanding of what you're saying is wrong (and I knew my wolf to chihuahua wasn't a direct parallel since it's an example of artificial selection, I brought it up because the OP did in a post, etc):

A transitional form is predicted by evolutionary theory, but the existence of one doesn't prove one way or another that such a form is the direct descendant of another form, nor that it had it's own descendants. It produces a picture that suggests it, but apart from more substantial analysis (DNA comparison, etc), it cannot be shown conclusively.

IOW ... analogy ... in trying to complete the puzzle, we can look at the missing pieces and go, "Hmm .... the piece that should go there would most likely look this way and that, and have such and such characteristics, based on the other pieces around it," ... and we can actually FIND pieces that fit what we're looking for. The main thing lacking are the direct tongue-and-grove connections (i.e. DNA comparisons, etc) we need to say conclusively that they all belong to the same puzzle definitively. Yes ?

 

[Jro]

A transitional form is predicted by evolutionary theory, but the existence of one doesn't prove one way or another that such a form is the direct descendant of another form, nor that it had it's own descendants. It produces a puzzle that suggests it, but apart from more substantial analysis (DNA comparison, etc), it cannot be shown conclusively.

I kind of think of it as following a trail. One of the worst things that science education has done is draw evolution like this:

http://mrfranta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Horse-evolution.jpg

When evolution is really like this:

http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/mcfaddenhorsephylo2005.jpg?w=500

Each fossil is essentially a foot print that represents a population from one point in time. There's no guarantee that the individual fossil or that population was an ancestor of modern populations, but it is a footprint on the track.

IOW ... analogy ... in trying to complete the puzzle, we can look at the missing pieces and go, "Hmm .... the piece that should go there would most likely look this way and that, and have such and such characteristics, based on the other pieces around it," ... and we can actually FIND pieces that fit what we're looking for.

Yes! Actually one of the ways we can do this is look at the different "foot prints" and say to ourselves, hey, there must have been something in between these two "prints." It must have lived in a similar environment at a time frame in between these two other "prints." Sure enough, this is one method that scientists such as Neil Shubin search for fossils, an how he found Tiktaalik Roseae.