Give your best "transitional form"

[46AND2]

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 ?

Correct.

 

[Jro]

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.

You got any evidence that this was just an example of an expression of a recessive gene? Not trying to be ornery, just curious.

 

[46AND2]

You got any evidence that this was just an example of an expression of a recessive gene? Not trying to be ornery, just curious.

I'll dig it up when Im not posting from my phone. I seem to remember a published paper about it, though I could be wrong.

 

[Jro]

I'll dig it up when Im not posting from my phone. I seem to remember a published paper about it, though I could be wrong.

Thanks dude, appreciate the effort.

 

[TillICollapse]

Correct.

Gotcha

 

[LoricaLady]

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 ?

There are no dinsoaurs with feathers. I have heard evolutionists saying birds, like chickens, are feathered dinosaurs. That's just spin, sometimes it is even spin in the form of art work. That is common, fake artwork based on presumptions.

An evolutionist said he found "proto feathers." Another evolutionist said, no that was just some collagen type material. Did the first evolutionist have any data to show that those wispy things that don't even look like feathers actually turned into feathers? Of course not. "Maybe....might have..I can see into the past..." became another evolutionary myth presented as fact.

You say you are not versed in evolutionary theory and that did seem apparent.
However, your best source of information is not me, in these little boxes. I have given you some resources to check out. I believe, for example, that archaeopteryx is covered fully in the Don Patton Youtube vid on Fossils. You can also check out both creation and evolution websites on the topic of archaeopteryx. I can tell you from my own research that many evolutionists have said archy is only a bird.

I could tell you the reasons why they said that. But I'm not gonna. I'd kind of like to, but I don't have the time to keep on a lot on this string which I probably should not have even started, and anyway you need to do some real research on your own.

Please do that. If you are like me you will have to listen to the vids, or read the websites or books more than once. Not because what they are saying is a bit difficult to understand. But because you already have a certain mind set which tells you, which told me, "Well, it must be true. I've heard it all my life. All those scientists couldn't be wrong..." Those kinds of thoughts will initially, possibly, keep you from hearing what is actually being said that is totally science and logic based. You have to learn to listen to both sides, to do critical analysis. You can do that. You seem plenty intelligent enough.

Don't worry. On most creation sites they don't spend that much time on religion. They don't thump on the Bible. They admit they believe it and that they think the evidence agrees with it. But they spend more time on what evolution says than on what the Bible says, by far. By studying creation sites and videos etc. you will actually become very proficient in what evolution is saying. They almost always tell you exactly what the evolutionists believe, with quotes - not uncommonly quite shocking quotes. Then they do compare and contrast with the actual evidence, with evolution's model on one side and creation's model on the other.

But, if you don't have the time for that, then please understand that I don't have the time to tell you all the things you can learn from much better sources than me. I only got on here to show that when people talk about "transitional" fossils they really don't have any evidence to show there are any such things.

Best wishes in your (I hope!) research.

P.S. I just glanced over a post of yours that I had missed. You accused me of being insulting and then said "Religion is just a way for people to make themselves feel special." Gee, that was kinda insulting, doncha think? Did I try to convince you of anything based on religion? No, I used science and logic. But, if you want to close your mind to this issue because of a bias against religion, do that. But be aware that a faith based belief system, which is not evidenced in reality, is a kind of religion - i.e. evolution.

 

[LoricaLady]

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 ?

I am saying that Austral. Afarensis is an ape. Period. I'm saying there is no evidence any of its descendants "transitioned" into a human being. There are evolutionists who agree with that. (They never agree on anything but that evolution has to be true.) If you take the time to research you will see those disagreement.

I'll be real honest with you. I'm not feeling very well right now. Therefore I'm sorry I started this string. I already did address the issue of the lungfish and so called feathered dinos, and to some extent, archaeopteryx with Sarah. Please read those posts to her. As I told her, I am not your best source of information. The truth, the real science based truth, is all over the net. But it takes time to research. It takes willingness to listen to the other side. You seem to have that willingness so good for you.

if I had more time and felt better I would probably answer more of your Qs. But you don't need me. You just need to do research outside the box and learn to think on your own. Bet you can do that easily.

Bye!

 

[TillICollapse]

There are no dinsoaurs with feathers. I have heard evolutionists saying birds, like chickens, are feathered dinosaurs. That's just spin, sometimes it is even spin in the form of art work. That is common, fake artwork based on presumptions.

An evolutionist said he found "proto feathers." Another evolutionist said, no that was just some collagen type material. Did the first evolutionist have any data to show that those wispy things that don't even look like feathers actually turned into feathers? Of course not. "Maybe....might have..I can see into the past..." became another evolutionary myth presented as fact.

You say you are not versed in evolutionary theory and that did seem apparent.
However, your best source of information is not me, in these little boxes. I have given you some resources to check out. I believe, for example, that archaeopteryx is covered fully in the Don Patton Youtube vid on Fossils. You can also check out both creation and evolution websites on the topic of archaeopteryx. I can tell you from my own research that many evolutionists have said archy is only a bird.

I could tell you the reasons why they said that. But I'm not gonna. I'd kind of like to, but I don't have the time to keep on a lot on this string which I probably should not have even started, and anyway you need to do some real research on your own.

Please do that. If you are like me you will have to listen to the vids, or read the websites or books more than once. Not because what they are saying is a bit difficult to understand. But because you already have a certain mind set which tells you, which told me, "Well, it must be true. I've heard it all my life. All those scientists couldn't be wrong..." Those kinds of thoughts will initially, possibly, keep you from hearing what is actually being said that is totally science and logic based. You have to learn to listen to both sides, to do critical analysis. You can do that. You seem plenty intelligent enough.

Don't worry. On most creation sites they don't spend that much time on religion. They don't thump on the Bible. They admit they believe it and that they think the evidence agrees with it. But they spend more time on what evolution says than on what the Bible says, by far. By studying creation sites and videos etc. you will actually become very proficient in what evolution is saying. They almost always tell you exactly what the evolutionists believe, with quotes - not uncommonly quite shocking quotes. Then they do compare and contrast with the actual evidence, with evolution's model on one side and creation's model on the other.

But, if you don't have the time for that, then please understand that I don't have the time to tell you all the things you can learn from much better sources than me. I only got on here to show that when people talk about "transitional" fossils they really don't have any evidence to show there are any such things.

Best wishes in your (I hope!) research.

I gotcha ... thanks for responding.

P.S. I just glanced over a post of yours that I had missed. You accused me of being insulting and then said "Religion is just a way for people to make themselves feel special." Gee, that was kinda insulting, doncha think? Did I try to convince you of anything based on religion? No, I used science and logic. But, if you want to close your mind to this issue because of a bias against religion, do that. But be aware that a faith based belief system, which is not evidenced in reality, is a kind of religion - i.e. evolution.

You must be confusing me with another poster, as I said nothing along these lines whatsoever.

I am saying that Austral. Afarensis is an ape. Period. I'm saying there is no evidence any of its descendants "transitioned" into a human being. There are evolutionists who agree with that. (They never agree on anything but that evolution has to be true.) If you take the time to research you will see those disagreement.

I'll be real honest with you. I'm not feeling very well right now. Therefore I'm sorry I started this string. I already did address the issue of the lungfish and so called feathered dinos, and to some extent, archaeopteryx with Sarah. Please read those posts to her. As I told her, I am not your best source of information. The truth, the real science based truth, is all over the net. But it takes time to research. It takes willingness to listen to the other side. You seem to have that willingness so good for you.

if I had more time and felt better I would probably answer more of your Qs. But you don't need me. You just need to do research outside the box and learn to think on your own. Bet you can do that easily.

Bye!

Well, I'll feel bad for asking more questions since you are sick ... so I'll stop Hope you feel better

 

[LoricaLady]

I gotcha ... thanks for responding.

You must be confusing me with another poster, as I said nothing along these lines whatsoever.

Well, I'll feel bad for asking more questions since you are sick ... so I'll stop Hope you feel better

That is very kind of you. I apologize to you and any others if I seemed rude sometimes. That probably is true. I don't have an excuse but a reason. My reason is that I have debated hundreds of evolution fans on Youtube under evolution supporting vids. I've been called so many names, heard so many profanities, even gotten some verbal sexual harassment. But it's their territory, so what could I expect? (A few started to "get it" though.) I guess I have become defensive. Well, obviously I have. Not good.

Some day I hope to come back and try again on this, a Christian forum where obscenities & so on are not allowed.

Blessings to all. Gotta leave.

P.S. you are right the P.S. was for Sarah. Like I said I don't feel so well right now. Sorry.

 

[46AND2]

Thanks dude, appreciate the effort.

No problem. I'll be on my computer tomorrow.

 

[TillICollapse]

That is very kind of you. I apologize to you and any others if I seemed rude sometimes. That probably is true. I don't have an excuse but a reason. My reason is that I have debated hundreds of evolution fans on Youtube under evolution supporting vids. I've been called so many names, heard so many profanities, even gotten some verbal sexual harassment. But it's their territory, so what could I expect? (A few started to "get it" though.) I guess I have become defensive. Well, obviously I have. Not good.

Some day I hope to come back and try again on this, a Christian forum where obscenities & so on are not allowed.

Blessings to all. Gotta leave.

P.S. you are right the P.S. was for Sarah. Like I said I don't feel so well right now. Sorry.

No worries ... I figured you confused me with someone else, for any number of reasons. I didn't really take it personally, esp considering you aren't feeling well

Again, hope you get better

 

[Oafman]

I apologize to you and any others if I seemed rude sometimes. That probably is true. I don't have an excuse but a reason. My reason is that I have debated hundreds of evolution fans on Youtube under evolution supporting vids.

There are debates on Youtube?! I thought it was mostly people swearing at each other and making derogatory comments about one another's Mothers!

Fortunately there's none of that here. For the most part CF remains civil - certainly by internet standards, which is a far cry from what I've seen on Youtube. I like to see people arguing their position with some passion, but I think there's a fine line between that and being overly abrasive, which I think you're probably straddling.

I will respond to your comments though. It is impossible for the Bible and evolution to be true. The Bible says creation happened in 6 days and stopped.
It says the sun was created after the plants. They can't be reconciled. Sorry.

I found this passage revealing. It gives the impression that your conclusion came before your consideration of the available evidence. I probably don't need to point out that this is a very unscientific approach. The understanding of the natural world requires an open mind, at all times.

Darwin is a great example of this. He spent decades trying to prove his own theory wrong, before publishing. In one of your posts you accuse him of lacking sufficient data. Compared to what we have now of course, Darwin had very little. But his approach was incredibly methodological and diligent. He collected and analysed vast amounts of samples over his career, for which he deserves a lot of credit, even if you don't accept his conclusions.

You might be tempted to say that modern biologists are not open-minded towards evolution, as they don't seem to question the theory. The reality is that science has been there and done that. Biologists have been trying to disprove this theory for over 200 years, and have all failed. The theory stands up to every possible examination and challenge, and every time another one of these challenges has failed, our certainty of the theory's validity becomes even greater.

My point is, if you believe in the story of Biblical creation, then you need to be constantly challenging it, and trying to find inconsistencies, and reasons to doubt it. Your posts in this thread don't give the impression that this is the case.

So, to the question. I'm not sure I should provide an example of a transitional fossil. So many have already done so, and you have dismissed them, imho without offering sufficient justification. But I have decided to provide one anyway, and I've chosen Ambulocetus. However, instead of telling me why you don't think it's transitional, could you instead please tell me in which 'kind' you would include it. Do you think it was a fish, or a dolphin, or an alligator, or a lizard, or something else?

And if I may, I have a couple of short questions for you, which will help me to understand what you believe about the diversity of life on Earth:
(i) How long do you believe life has existed on Earth?
(ii) Why do you think that some 'kinds' appeared later than others?

Oh, and while I'm here, one more thing. Dolphins DO NOT look like sharks! Seriously. As someone who has spent a lot of time in the water with both, I promise you that as soon as you catch the slightest glimpse of either, even in low visibility, you immediately know which it is. They look very different, which reflects the fact that they are so very different, in so many ways.

 

[LoricaLady]

There are debates on Youtube?! I thought it was mostly people swearing at each other and making derogatory comments about one another's Mothers!

Fortunately there's none of that here. For the most part CF remains civil - certainly by internet standards, which is a far cry from what I've seen on Youtube. I like to see people arguing their position with some passion, but I think there's a fine line between that and being overly abrasive, which I think you're probably straddling.


I found this passage revealing. It gives the impression that your conclusion came before your consideration of the available evidence. I probably don't need to point out that this is a very unscientific approach. The understanding of the natural world requires an open mind, at all times.

Darwin is a great example of this. He spent decades trying to prove his own theory wrong, before publishing. In one of your posts you accuse him of lacking sufficient data. Compared to what we have now of course, Darwin had very little. But his approach was incredibly methodological and diligent. He collected and analysed vast amounts of samples over his career, for which he deserves a lot of credit, even if you don't accept his conclusions.

Darwin did no real scientific research at all. Unlike Mendel, he never used the scientific method. Mendell saw that peas stay peas and bees stay bees no matter how many changes they make. Darwin himself admitted there were problems with his theory. He admitted that the fossil record did not really support it but assumed that with more digs they would get the evidenced. The exact opposite has occurred.

Countless billions of fossils have been dug up. Though, as mentioned above re nylon eating bacteria and Tiktaalik/Coelacanth we are told over and over that there are "transitional" forms, the arguments are always based on Correlation Does Not Imply Causation ("looks like....similar morphology") Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison" (Look! Humans have 2 "fused" chromsomes and if you count them right we can say that we and chimps both have 48 chromosomes. See? We evolvded from the apes." But...the chromosomes in humans are 100% human, for ex. of a different size and frequency from that of apes, Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "And only evolution can explain it!" But many animals have fussed chromosomes and as one evolutionist said they are using the cherry picking logical fallacy to say our fused chromosome comes via apes when they are not making evolutionary claims for (or even mentioning) fusions in other animals. Also 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome, usually harmless. Since that one makes no match with the evolutionary theory it is simply ignored by evolutionists.

You might be tempted to say that modern biologists are not open-minded towards evolution, as they don't seem to question the theory.You are the one who needs to be more open minded friend. It seems you have done research on only one side whereas I have delved deeply into both. There are scientists, all over the net, in bookstores galore, coming out against evolution. See the movie Expelled on Y
outube, where scientists give their testimony, with written documents, on how they are persecuted and lose their jobs if they even suggest that there is any support for creation.
The reality is that science has been there and done that. Biologists have been trying to disprove this theory for over 200 years, and have all failed. The theory stands up to every possible examination and challenge, and every time another one of these challenges has failed, our certainty of the theory's validity becomes even greater.

My point is, if you believe in the story of Biblical creation, then you need to be constantly challenging it, and trying to find inconsistencies, and reasons to doubt it. Your posts in this thread don't give the impression that this is the case.

So, to the question. I'm not sure I should provide an example of a transitional fossil. So many have already done so, and you have dismissed them, imho without offering sufficient justification. But I have decided to provide one anyway, and I've chosen Ambulocetus.I am so glad you picked out Ambulocetus since I have done so much research on it. I will ask the same Q I have already asked, over and over above. I believe you will also dodge it. If you are like the others you will have excuses for why you are dodging it and pile on a plethora of words, but you will never answer the Q. The Q is this: What evidence is there that
Ambulocetus ever had a single descendant that is significantly different from itself? Here's another Q. How do you know it isn't just what it looks like, a dead end extinct life form going nowhere? I'll tell you what the actual evidence shows. It shows an animal with hair and hooves. Based on some minor similarities (Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is the logical fallacy used most, of many others, in evolutionary literature) in its ear to the ears of whales and dolphins, well
there ya go! We're supposed to see the "obvious". It turned into a whale or dolphin! What a joke. I have seen evolutionists put up pictures of their "whale transitions" as many as 12 or so. None of them really look like whales. None of them really look like each other. Well, if you use your imagination, you need lots and lots of imagination in evolution while you ignore the real evidence, you can see "similarities" between them, but there is 0 evidence any of the so called transitions transitioned into anything, much less one another, much less whales and dolphins. If you want to believe that a hairy, hooved animal turned into a whale based on some similarities in their ears, have fun. I don't buy it. And before you tell me about the bones in whales that used to be legs, that's bogus too. Real evidence, real science, shows those bones are used to support the whales'massive bodies in mating in the water. For ex. the males and females have different kinds. But people read about how those bones used to be legs and swallow the line and get hooked into the fish story.

. However, instead of telling me why you don't think it's transitional, could you instead please tell me in which 'kind' you would include it. Do you think it was a fish, or a dolphin, or an alligator, or a lizard, or something else? I have gone over the evidence. It is not a marine mammal by any stretch of the imagination. It had four legs, hooves. That's the evidence. The evidence that its progeny turned into a whale over time, ditto that of the other supposed transitional whale forms? Non existent. Yeal, I do get kind of abrasive and shouldn't It's hard, though, to see little kids being told things like "Ambulocetus was a Prewhale!" It's hard seeing them being told that something is science when it is the exact opposite.
Go with the evidence friend,Period. No evidence equals no science.

And if I may, I have a couple of short questions for you, which will help me to understand what you believe about the diversity of life on Earth:
(i) How long do you believe life has existed on Earth?
(ii) Why do you think that some 'kinds' appeared later than others?
I don't like to switch the topic to the Bible as it turns into a strawman logical fallacy. Evoltuion stands or falls based on science and logic alone regardless of whether or not you believe in the Bible, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are atheists who don't believe in evolution.

Oh, and while I'm here, one more thing. Dolphins DO NOT look like sharks! Seriously. As someone who has spent a lot of time in the water with both, "As someone who has spent a lot of timein the water with both." Yeal, with a lot of time you can tell the difference easily. Show any child a picture of a dolphin and a shark as exhibit A. Then show them a picture of Tiktaalik and a salamander as exhibit B. Ask any four year old, "Which two look a lot alike?" and they will pick out the shark and dolphin.
I am referring to the possibly most famous "transition", i.e. Tiktaalik I invite people to Google Melbourne Museum's "Replica" of Tiktaalik. There you see that not just with words, but commonly with art work, the public is deceived. The actual fossil has fins that are about 1/3 the size of the replica's, has fins that do not have pronounced musculature as seen in the replica and that do not bend like the replica's. Also the replica has a snout that tilts upward to give the impression it is starting to sniff the air. All b.s. Some evolutionary art work shows leg like things on the back of Tik such as have never been seen in fossils or in real life. And that is totally bogus since the real fossil doesn't even have a back end!I promise you that as soon as you catch the slightest glimpse of either, even in low visibility, you immediately know which it is.

As I said to an earlier poster I am not feeling well. I am shaking as I write due to what is called an "adrenal crash", i.e. my adrenals have gone through a weak stage and I am trying to build them up right now. That is why you may notice typos. Somewhere in the post above I believe you said that my belief in the Bible is why I don't buy evolution. See Spike Psarris vid on the Big Bang. Like me, he, a scientist working for the navy in astronomy, started out believing in evolution but the data persuaded him that creation was the only scientific explanation for what is seen out there. I believed in evolution all my life. I never even knew anyone who doubted it was true. Then I read a book by Dr. Gary Parker - one of many formerly atheist scientists, in fact one who used to teach evolution as fact at the university level - called Creation Facts of Life. By the time I was finished with that book I was laughing, really hard, at evolultion.

Since then I have studied the issue in depth from both sides. As I keep saying, as I have seen over and over, the whole theory is based on nothing but logical fallacies (science is not science when it becomes illogical) assumptions presented as facts ("likely....must have...could have...see our computer simulation since we have no real evidence and you will see how mice can turn into horse") and out and out fraud not uncommonly, both verbally and in art work as I mentioned.

If anyone else writes to me I am just going to refer them to this post and preceding ones. If they can give me evidence, not convulted illogical arguments based on logical fallacies and assumptions treated as facts, for how we can know what happened to Tik's descendants, if any, or the descendants of any so called "transitional forms" then I will respond. But you won't and they won't because....there is no evidence of that kind.

There is evidence galore. Countless billions of fossilized examples, even more living examples that show fish staying fish, reptiles staying reptiles, birds staying birds, apes staying apes etc. etc. etc. But that evidence is being shuffled off to the side with lots of "explanations" for why it's not there. Evolution is a shell game. They tell you "Look here! Look here! Look at our so called evidence which is no evidence at all, which is not scientific and is not logical. And don't look at the real evidence. Keep your eyes trained on what we want you to see, or think that you see."

Again, if you can give me evidence for Ambulocetus' & Tik's etc. descendants have at it. But I've already seen there is none, only excuses for why there is none like, "Well, it all happened so slowly you see. That's why there is no evidence. Pssst ignore the real evidence overflowing on the planet that says it never happened."

But you won't. Miller was right. Tiktallik is "as good as it gets for a transitional form" and that means no evidence whatsoever.

Anyone who replies w/o evidence, with only excuse for evidence will have to be ignored. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but (1) I have already gone over the "evidences" on numerous fronts (2) I don't feel so good (3) if anyone doesn't get it based on what I have already shown, maybe they will get is some day IF they actually carefully and studiously study the other side. So, why should we waste our times on any more print.

May we all come into the full knowledge of what truth and science really are.

 

[bhsmte]

As I said to an earlier poster I am not feeling well. I am shaking as I write due to what is called an "adrenal crash", i.e. my adrenals have gone through a weak stage and I am trying to build them up right now. That is why you may notice typos. Somewhere in the post above I believe you said that my belief in the Bible is why I don't buy evolution. See Spike Psarris vid on the Big Bang. Like me, he, a scientist working for the navy in astronomy, started out believing in evolution but the data persuaded him that creation was the only scientific explanation for what is seen out there. I believed in evolution all my life. I never even knew anyone who doubted it was true. Then I read a book by Dr. Gary Parker - one of many formerly atheist scientists, in fact one who used to teach evolution as fact at the university level - called Creation Facts of Life. By the time I was finished with that book I was laughing, really hard, at evolultion.

Since then I have studied the issue in depth from both sides. As I keep saying, as I have seen over and over, the whole theory is based on nothing but logical fallacies (science is not science when it becomes illogical) assumptions presented as facts ("likely....must have...could have...see our computer simulation since we have no real evidence and you will see how mice can turn into horse") and out and out fraud not uncommonly, both verbally and in art work as I mentioned.

If anyone else writes to me I am just going to refer them to this post and preceding ones. If they can give me evidence, not convulted illogical arguments based on logical fallacies and assumptions treated as facts, for how we can know what happened to Tik's descendants, if any, or the descendants of any so called "transitional forms" then I will respond. But you won't and they won't because....there is no evidence.

There is evidence galore. Countless billions of fossilized examples, even more living examples that show fish staying fish, reptiles staying reptiles, birds staying birds, apes staying apes etc. etc. etc. But that evidence is being shuffled off to the side with lots of "explanations" for why it's not there. Evolution is a shell game. They tell you "Look here! Look here! Look at our so called evidence which is no evidence at all, which is not scientific and is not logical. And don't look at the real evidence. Keep your eyes trained on what we want you to see, or think that you see."

Again, if you can give me evidence for Tik's descendants have at it. But I've already seen there is none, only excuses for why there is none like, "Well, it all happened so slowly you see. That's why there is no evidence. Pssst ignore the real evidence overflowing on the planet that says it never happened."

But you won't. Miller was right. Tiktallik is "as good as it gets for a transitional form" and that means no evidence whatsoever.

Anyone who replies w/o evidence, with only excuse for evidence will have to be ignored. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but (1) I have already gone over the "evidences" on numerous fronts (2) I don't feel so good (3) if anyone doesn't get it based on what I have already shown, maybe they will get is some day IF they actually carefully and studiously study the other side. So, why should we waste our times on any more print.

May we all come into the full knowledge of what truth and science really are.

Let me ask you a question or two, to understand how you think science has failed in showing their is empirical evidence to support evolution. Below is a quote from Francis Collins, who is a devout christian and former head of the human genome project. Collin's is quite knowledgeable in regards to the DNA evidence that has recently come into play in strong support of evolution.

-Do you believe there is some world wide scientific conspiracy amongst scientists in regards to their overwhelming support for evolutionary theory?
-Do you feel like the scientists are simply; incompetent and they are not seeing issues that only people like you can see?


Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

 

[Loudmouth]

There are no dinsoaurs with feathers.

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have heard evolutionists saying birds, like chickens, are feathered dinosaurs.

All birds are classified as theropod dinosaurs:

Coelurosauria

An evolutionist said he found "proto feathers." Another evolutionist said, no that was just some collagen type material. Did the first evolutionist have any data to show that those wispy things that don't even look like feathers actually turned into feathers? Of course not. "Maybe....might have..I can see into the past..." became another evolutionary myth presented as fact.

You say you are not versed in evolutionary theory and that did seem apparent.
However, your best source of information is not me, in these little boxes. I have given you some resources to check out. I believe, for example, that archaeopteryx is covered fully in the Don Patton Youtube vid on Fossils. You can also check out both creation and evolution websites on the topic of archaeopteryx. I can tell you from my own research that many evolutionists have said archy is only a bird.

Then what features would a fossil need in order to be transitional?

Please do that. If you are like me you will have to listen to the vids, or read the websites or books more than once. Not because what they are saying is a bit difficult to understand. But because you already have a certain mind set which tells you, which told me, "Well, it must be true. I've heard it all my life. All those scientists couldn't be wrong..." Those kinds of thoughts will initially, possibly, keep you from hearing what is actually being said that is totally science and logic based. You have to learn to listen to both sides, to do critical analysis. You can do that. You seem plenty intelligent enough.

You are projecting. What we see in this thread is you saying that no matter what the fossil evidence is, it will not change your mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am saying that Austral. Afarensis is an ape. Period.

Why can't a fossil be an ape and also be a transitional species? What about being an ape precludes a fossil from being transitional? Also, you are only using two classifications: ape and human. Any transitional would necessarily fall into one of those categories, but it would still be transitional.

I'm saying there is no evidence any of its descendants "transitioned" into a human being.

Why isn't a mixture of ape and human features evidence? What features would a fossil need to have in order to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps? If you can't answer this question, then you can't claim there is no evidence.

There are evolutionists who agree with that. (They never agree on anything but that evolution has to be true.)

"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Even Gould agrees that A. afarensis is transitional.

If you take the time to research you will see those disagreement.

If you studied real science instead of creationist propoganda you could have a rational conversation.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one who needs to be more open minded friend. It seems you have done research on only one side whereas I have delved deeply into both.

Then why do you only reference creationist websites? Why can't you use real scientific references?

If you were honestly looking at the fossil record then you could answer this simple question. What features does a fossil need in order to be transitional? To keep this narrowed down, why don't you tell us what features a fossil would need in order to be transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps.

If you can't answer this question, then you haven't honestly looked at the evidence.

 

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: Please see my response to Oafman, above, and responses to others preceding that. I've already said what there is to say. I keep getting the same Qs, basically, where I have already given the As, and keep having my Qs dodged over and over. I would like to say more, but it would only be repetitive and as I have said, sadly I have started going through an "adrenal crash." Arguing with people aint' good for the adrenals.

May we all come into the knowledge of all truth.

 

[LoricaLady]

Why can't a fossil be an ape and also be a transitional species? What about being an ape precludes a fossil from being transitional? Also, you are only using two classifications: ape and human. Any transitional would necessarily fall into one of those categories, but it would still be transitional.



Why isn't a mixture of ape and human features evidence? What features would a fossil need to have in order to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps? If you can't answer this question, then you can't claim there is no evidence.



"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Even Gould agrees that A. afarensis is transitional.



If you studied real science instead of creationist propoganda you could have a rational conversation.

See how this debate is endless. I have stated, correctly, that I have studied both sides. For years and years. Like Gould for example. Now there's a real scientist for you. I believe he worked for Harvard.

He admitted - though he went through many changes of mind in his career as an evolutionist - at one time that there are no transitional forms. But! He came up with a wonderful theory to explain away that problem. He gave it a big fancy sounding name. Punctuated Equilibrium. According to this theory - which has zero evidence, that's the beauty of it, you don't have any evidence and you have an explanation based on zero evidence for why there is zero evidence - the animals transitioned suddenly, too quickly to leave any trace. This is in evolutionary literature. If creationists quote it, they didn't create it.

On one side in evolution you are told Things happened too slowly for there to be any evidence! On the other side, in one of Gould's transitions, we are told "Things happened too fast for their to be any evidence!" I have seen sites like Talk Origins use both arguments, i.e. gradualism and punctuated equilibria, i.e 2 arguments that totally contradict one another, to defend a fossil as being a "transition." That is called cognitive dissonance. Any way you look at it, they will have an argument to explain away the fact that there is no real evidence for evolution, that the real evidence is against evolution.

As far as conspiracy, the poster who brought that idea up also is simply dodging my science based and logic based Qs and trying to change the subject.
Either the evidence is there or it's not. You can come up with theories on why people would want to squash opposition to orthodoxy in science, you can see evidence for that galore in history, but while you are doing that you are dodging the Qs I asked. If you look through this string anyone, you will see they never lack for words and they always lack for answers to my Qs regarding what actual data or evidence exists to show that their "transition" isn't just one of innumerable dead end life forms that never had a single descendant significantly different from itself.

Simple, science and logic based Qs.

And that's it. I ain't readin' any more on this string. Said it all already. A plethora of word trails will likely follow. None of them will ever answer my Qs. The dodges and changes of subjects and excuses for why they don't answer my Qs may continue. They may even, like one poster above, claim they did answer my Qs! But if you seek you will find there are no answers given to my Qs. Ever. That's the evidence you can see for yourself. Right here.

If you have any other Qs, either directly or indirectly there is a 99% probability that I have already answered them in the posts above to others. Most of all get honest with yourself and see if YOU can answer my Qs and get honest with yourself, please, and see that you can't give any evolution-friendly answers to the Qs.

Bye and best wishes.

 

[46AND2]

ANYONE: Please see my response to Oafman, above, and responses to others preceding that. I've already said what there is to say. I keep getting the same Qs, basically, where I have already given the As, and keep having my Qs dodged over and over. I would like to say more, but it would only be repetitive and as I have said, sadly I have started going through an "adrenal crash." Arguing with people aint' good for the adrenals.

May we all come into the knowledge of all truth.

You made the same mistake with oafman that you did with everyone else. You equated transitional with ancestral. You have been corrected on this several times.

The fact that you fail to even bother addressing this point, indicates your dogmatic persistence of religious presupposition, and lack of objectivity.

You think you have this devastating question against evolution, but ignore us when we try to tell you the question is irrelevant, and hence, a strawman.