PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Transitional Fossils

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the post "evidence against evolution"
creationest6 has cut and pasted a load of absolute crap.  Typical creationist blunderbus post, throw enough lies and crap out and hope (pray) some of their audience is ignorant enough to believe it.  And it's obvious that creationest6 doesn't understand any of the crap he has posted.  So I thought we'd break down his post and deal with the claims in depth.  I probably won't get through all of them but I'm not just cutting and pasting.  The first claim is there are no transitional fossils.  
So let's look at some of the claims from that post:
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

This is simply not true.  Let's see what the experts, the people that do the actual research, say on transitional fossils:
From the National Academy of Sciences, here:
TransitionalFossils
"In Darwin's time, however, paleontology was still a rudimentary science, and large parts of the geological succession of stratified rocks were unknown or inadequately studied. Darwin, therefore, worried about the rarity of truly intermediate forms. Creationists have then and now seized on this as a weakness in evolutionary theory. Indeed, although gaps in the paleontological record remain even now, many have been filled with the researches of paleontologists since Darwin's time. Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms found in welldated rock sequences represent a succession of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. . . There have been so many discoveries of intermediate forms between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and even along the primate line of descent that it is often difficult to identify categorically the line to which a particular genus or species belongs."

So the real scientists, the real experts who do the actual research disagree vehemently with your unamed sources claim.  There are hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.

As we've seen, this is incorrect, there are a great many transitional fossils, but it is the second line that I want to look at...

All appear fully formed and complete.

What would a half formed animal look like???  This line shows that creationest6' source has no understanding of the theory of evolution.  Where in the TOE does it predict 'half formed animals'??  Of course, every animal, transitionals included, will be fully formed, fully capable of survival in it's ecological niche.  How seriously can we take a claim that doesn't even understand the theory of evolution???

For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found.

I liked this one because it's directly discredited by the evidence.  From here:
Tiktaalik
"The fossils of the approximately 9-ft. long creature, which are, described in two Nature articles released today, were dug out of rock formations on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian Arctic, by paleontologists from the University of Chicago and several other institutions. Its nickame, for reasons that will become clear, is "fishapod"; it's more formally called Tiktaalik ("large fish in stream," in the local Inuit language). Fishapod dates from about 383 million years ago. It had the scales, teeth and gills of a fish, but also a big, curved rib cage that suggests the creature had lungs as well. The ribs interlock, moreover, unlike a fish's, implying they were able to bear fishapod's weight—an unnecessary trait in a fish. It had a neck—most unfishlike. And, most surprising of all, its pectoral fins included bones that look like nothing less than a primitive wrist and fingers."

There you go, just what creationest6' source says doesn't exist, a fish with part fins, part feet.  Ready to admit transitional fossils exist?

There are no links of plant to animal

Well, this is a very early split and we haven't found many fossils in this lineage but the split happened over a billion years ago.  And while there are no fossil links I know of, there is a large amount of biochemical evidence, genetic evidence that plants and animals share a common ancestor.  

fish to amphibian

Great amount of fish to amphibian transitional fossils from
Talkorigins
Osteolepis,Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion,
Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega, Labyrinthodonts, and Tiktaalik.

amphibian to reptile

Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris

reptile to mammals

There are a great many reptile to mammal transitional fossils.  The evolution of the reptilian second jaw joint into the mammilian inner ear bones is overwhelming evidence of reptile to mammal evolution.
Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops haplous, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia,
Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon,
Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon,
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus cromptoni...

reptile to birds

Paleontologists concur, birds evovled from dinosaurs, here's some of the transitionals:
Coelophysis, Deinonychus, Oviraptor, Lisboasaurus estesi, Archeopteryx lithographica, Sinornis santensis, Ambiortus dementjevi, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis.
All these examples of transitional fossils are courtesy of Talkorigins.

There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present

Once again, this statement shows a severe lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, this indicates that where ever this came from is worthless.

Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Darwin was aware of some transitional fossils, but digging for fossils was in it's infancy.  Since Darwin's time literally hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils have been found.  And Darwin himself answered the "fact" by saying there were so few transitional fossils due to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  Where ever this source got there claim, they did not give the full quote, highly dishonest, but a typical creationist tactic of lieing.

the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood

True bird?  Dinosaurs had feathers, there is evidence that some dinosaurs were warm blooded.  And Archaeopteryx had more dinosaurian characteristics than avian characteristics.  Once again, the source used here is dead wrong.

Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)

But we do see exactly that, the fish' heart is two chambered, the reptilian heart is 3 chambered, the mammilian heart and avian heart is 4 chambered.  Each heart is fully functional and yet, obviously in transition.  Again, this source doesn't understand evolution, it is truely worthless.

Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution.

Completely untrue.  This source doesn't know what evolution is or what the terminology means.  Macroevolution is defined as a change at or above the species level, we have seen new species arise, macroevolution is an observed fact.  It is NOT a new theory of evolution, it is part of the theory of evolution.

The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."

Completely wrong!  Once again, this source doesn't even know what evolution is!

The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time

Complete lie.  Just the opposite is true, the fossil record continues to get better and better as new fossils are found and compared to previously discovered fossils.  
So creatinest6, here's some questions for you.
I know you never answer technical questions with anything more than "Proof please..."  but if you want to actually debate, or actually learn anything, let's see you answer them.
Your source is completely wrong, explain to us what a transitional fossil is and why your source doesn't know what it is.
Explain to us why your source claims there are no transitional fossils and yet the experts say there are hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils with more being found every day.
Explain to us why Tiktaalik, an obvious transitional fossil between fish and amphibians ISN'T transitional.
As usual, you're afraid to look at the real research because it completely destroys your simple, primitive myths.  Let's see what your reaction is to the real facts instead of those lies your source makes...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:09 PM on September 14, 2007 | IP
Architect

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


http://www.terradaily.com/reports/How_Ancient_Whales_Lost_Their_Legs_Got_Sleek_And_Conquered_The_Oceans.html

That's a whale fossil.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 03:03 AM on September 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if you want to actually debate

o ya, like u no how to debate.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:04 AM on September 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

o ya, like u no how to debate.

Well, you're the one who seems to be having problems.  I answered your claims on transitional fossils, I debunked them.  The claim that there are no transitional fossils has been shown to be false, there are hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils.  It's up to you now to explain why your claim was wrong or admit you are wrong.  
And I asked you a few questions that you continue to ignore.  
Do you know what a transitional fossil is?  
How do you define a transitional fossil?
And then I asked you to tell us why a transitional fossil like Tiktaalik ISN'T transitional...
If you really want to debate, answer the questions!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:12 PM on September 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u no nothing about debating technics.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:41 PM on September 19, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u no nothing about debating technics.

Hey, you presented your claim, I showed your claim was wrong.  The ball is in your court now, support your claim now that I've disproved it or admit you are wrong.  That's how a debate works.  All your doing now is whining because you can't defend your position.  If YOU want to debate answer the questions I've posed or stop wasting our time....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:56 PM on September 19, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you going to support your erroneous claim that there are no transitional fossils or do you admit you're wrong?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:20 AM on September 22, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the trasnithional fossils could easily be diffrent creatures. not half evolved creatures.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 2:11 PM on September 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the trasnithional fossils could easily be diffrent creatures. not half evolved
creatures.


What does half evolved mean?  The theory of evolution states that nothing will be half evovled.  All organisms will be fully formed.  You don't understand evolution!  You don't know what a transitional fossl is!  You are completely wrong.  Why do the experts say there are hundreds  of thousands of transitional fossls?  What do you know that they don't?  How many fossils have you studied in depth?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:25 AM on September 24, 2007 | IP
EducatedCreationist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:12 PM on September 17, 2007 :
o ya, like u no how to debate.

Well, you're the one who seems to be having problems.  I answered your claims on transitional fossils, I debunked them.  The claim that there are no transitional fossils has been shown to be false, there are hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils.  It's up to you now to explain why your claim was wrong or admit you are wrong.  
And I asked you a few questions that you continue to ignore.  
Do you know what a transitional fossil is?  
How do you define a transitional fossil?
And then I asked you to tell us why a transitional fossil like Tiktaalik ISN'T transitional...
If you really want to debate, answer the questions!



A problem with Tiktaalik is that the bones in the fins are not connected to the main skeleton, so they couldn't have supported it's weight on land.

They said that the fins could have helped prop up the body of the fish moving along the bottom of the water, but evolutionists had similar hopes about the coelacanth before it was found alive in 1938, and they discovered that the fins were used for something else.


-------
"A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing." - Mark Johansen
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:33 PM on September 24, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A problem with Tiktaalik is that the bones in the fins are not connected to the main skeleton, so they couldn't have supported it's weight on land.

This is incorrect, from here:
Tiktaalik

"Tiktaalik appears to be a transitional form between fish and amphibian. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably weren't used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, much like a pushup action. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex it fin like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features were speculated to evolve if not from land excursions, than as a useful adaptation to anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.[4]

A more robust ribcage is also a feature of Tiktaalik, which would have been very helpful in supporting the animal’s body if it did indeed venture from the water. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have - bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This means Tiktaalik is currently the earliest fish with a neck, which would give it more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.[5]"

"Tiktaalik generally had the characteristics of a lobe-finned fish, but with front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist."

Shoulder, elbow and wrists are traditionally attached to the main skeleton, tiktaaliks were also.  But they weren't attached to the skull, like most fish, giving tiktaalik a functional neck, also unlike other fsh.  But yes, they were attached to it's skeleton.

So no, tiktaalik's were connected to it's skeleton and it probably could have supported it's weight on land.  But you didn't bother to mention any of tiktaaliks other tetrapod characteristics.

And no scientist thought coelocanths were able to walk.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:46 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
EducatedCreationist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 07:46 AM on September 25, 2007 :
A problem with Tiktaalik is that the bones in the fins are not connected to the main skeleton, so they couldn't have supported it's weight on land.

This is incorrect, from here:
Tiktaalik

"Tiktaalik appears to be a transitional form between fish and amphibian. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably weren't used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, much like a pushup action. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex it fin like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features were speculated to evolve if not from land excursions, than as a useful adaptation to anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.[4]


We see today fish with fins used to move along the bottom of the ocean; the epaulette shark species Hemiscyllium sp. uses its fins to walk along the sea floor. Are these evolving?




-------
"A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing." - Mark Johansen
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 08:54 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We see today fish with fins used to move along the bottom of the ocean; the epaulette shark species Hemiscyllium sp. uses its fins to walk along the sea floor. Are these
evolving?


Since all life reporduces imperfectly, all life is evolving.  But since we can't see into the future we don't know what they are evolving into.  Many fish use their fins towalk on the bottom but not all fish have shoulders, elbows and wrists, like tiktaalik had.  And what fish have a neck like tiktaalik or the thick rib cage of a terrestrial vertabrate?  And let's not forget that there is evidence that tiktallik had lungs as well as gills.  Sounds like this is perfectly described as transitional.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:44 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
EducatedCreationist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 09:44 AM on September 25, 2007 :
We see today fish with fins used to move along the bottom of the ocean; the epaulette shark species Hemiscyllium sp. uses its fins to walk along the sea floor. Are these
evolving?


Since all life reporduces imperfectly, all life is evolving.  But since we can't see into the future we don't know what they are evolving into.  Many fish use their fins towalk on the bottom but not all fish have shoulders, elbows and wrists, like tiktaalik had.  And what fish have a neck like tiktaalik or the thick rib cage of a terrestrial vertabrate?  And let's not forget that there is evidence that tiktallik had lungs as well as gills.  Sounds like this is perfectly described as transitional.


I certainly admit that I don't have all the answers, but I do think that there should be many more transitional fossils in order to call evolution a theory, much less a fact.


-------
"A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing." - Mark Johansen
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 2:37 PM on September 25, 2007 | IP
Architect

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lol. There's plenty more evidence of evolution if the fossil record isn't good enough for you. Not that the fossil record indicates anything other than evolution.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 6:05 PM on September 25, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

certainly admit that I don't have all the answers, but I do think that there should be many more transitional fossils in order to call evolution a theory, much less a fact.

A fair admission, nobody has all the answers.  But in a previous post, I mentioned that there were hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils.  And this is only the transitional fossils we've found so far, more are found every day.
Since we are looking at the fish to amphibian line, earlier in this post I showed these transitional fossils:
Osteolepis,Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion,
Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega, Labyrinthodonts, and Tiktaalik

They go from more fishlike to more amphibian over time.  How does any other theory explain this transition over time better than evolution?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:57 AM on September 26, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I certainly admit that I don't have all the answers, but I do think that there should be many more transitional fossils in order to call evolution a theory, much less a fact.


Oh the irony. To think that back in the day before the advent of the Theory of Evolution there were swarms of creationists who couldn't come to terms with the fact that Earth has so many transitional life forms in the fossil record, swimming in its oceans, walking on its surface, and flying in its atmosphere. It's the vast number of living and preserved transitional life forms that drove scientists (all of whom were creationists back then) to accept evolution.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:20 PM on September 26, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RETURN OF…CREATIONEST!

TRANSITION FOSSILS?

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species


---

Introduction

Does the fossil record show an evolutionary record of transition from one kind of life to another? What about claimed transition forms? Are creationists quoting out of context when we cite evolutionists admitting an absence of transition forms?

The problem is worse than Darwin thought:

The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and less gradualistic. (Raup)

Contrary to the impression given by evolutionary books and magazines, evidence of transition is rare and limited to variation within kinds. Sensationalistic claims of ‘evolutionary ancestors’ make it into the newspapers; retractions and more sober evaluations of new fossils do not. As Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, put it:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. (correspondence w. Sunderland)

The following graphic helps explain why scientists say the number of transition forms ranges from few to none, yet Darwinists claim to have many transition forms. In evolutionary theory an ancestral species may give rise to numerous living species (different branches of the evolutionary true) as well as numerous species that have since gone extinct. A true transition form would be on the central branch of this evolutionary lineage, between the presumed ancestral species and modern life. If extinct life is highly specialized and distinct experts believe the fossils in question are a side branch and not the transitions they are seeking. This is particularly true when it has different features from those shared by all purported descendants of the proposed ancestor. It is dishonest to "fudge" these purported side branches and present them to the public as if they were true transition forms when the experts believe otherwise. From a creationary perspective such distinct extinct life forms were unique, unrelated creatures.


For example, Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould is famous for declaring that transition fossils are lacking, so evolution must have occurred in rapid spurts (by mysterious genetic mechanisms) separated by long periods of stasis. He called this concept "punctuated equilibrium." This was his attempt to cope with the absence of transitions above the level of created kinds:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. (Gould)

Within scientific circles Gould drove home the point that transition fossils are lacking (as demonstrated in the Patterson quote above). Yet in speeches to the public in the last few years he has directly contradicted himself, boldly claiming that transition fossils are one of the three best arguments for evolution! (Blievernicht) His prize example? Whale evolution. Yet scholars such as Ashby Camp and Dr. Duane Gish have documented that the "transition fossils" Gould mentions in his whale evolution model are recognized to be specialized side branches, unique creatures distinct from whales and one another. (Gish, Camp) Nor do they appear in the proper order in the geologic strata. Evolutionary lineages do not flow from the fossil evidence, rather Darwinian beliefs must be imposed on (selectively cited) fossil evidence, with many assumptions, to "see" a Darwinian transformation. Gould’s prize example involved fudging to create "transition forms," which begs the question – why are the trunk and main branches of the evolutionary tree perpetually missing from the fossil record? The best answer is that they never existed.







Evolutionism teaches the appearance of life from non-life, followed by patterns of innovation and diversification from a single-celled ancestor to the great diversity of life we see around us today. Evolutionary predictions are shown in the top two graphics. The actual physical evidence of the fossil record is shown in the bottom two. The prediction is falsified, even when interpreted according to uniformitarian (old earth) belief.

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it. (Lewin)

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson)

In summary, the fossil record contradicts Darwinism and supports the biblical teaching that God created all life in their distinct kinds, even when the fossil record is interpreted improperly from a uniformitarian perspective.




-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 9:45 PM on October 2, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationest, copy-pasted articles are not worthy of any response. I could just as easily copy and paste this into the forum.

Debate--don't plagiarize.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:48 PM on October 2, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its information against transitional fossils. dis prove it.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:46 PM on October 2, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I already did. You missed the website I linked to.

See how this works? Arguing through the words of others isn't effective.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 05:14 AM on October 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

...Charles Darwin, The Origin of
Species


It's been pointed out many, many times, Charles Darwin is over 150 years out of date.
I mentioned that 100s of thousands of clearly transitional fossils have been found and more are found every day.  Shoot, I mentioned a number of them.  None of the resident creationists have been able to refute them.

All you have to do to support your worthless cut and paste link is to explain why the transitional fossils I mentioned are not transitional.  You know, the ones I mentioned above, tiktaalik, acanthostega, or any of the rest.  You continually ignore the examples of transitional fossils I provide.

Creationism predicts that there would be no transitional forms, the fact that we have 100s of thousands completely destroys creationism's claim.  Creationists are forced to deny reality, as creationest6 tries to vainly do here.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:08 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is that there need to be millions more than there are of regular animals.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:58 PM on October 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is that there need to be millions more than there are of regular animals.


There are billions of regular animals. All animals are "regular".


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:45 AM on October 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is that there need to be millions more than there are of regular
animals.


Every animal is transitional!  What we're talking about is clearly transitional fossils.  There very well could be millions more transitional fossils that we just haven't found yet.  And you never were able to explain the 100s of thousands of clearly transitional fossils we have found.  And you never did explain to us why the ones we have found aren't transitional and excellent evidence of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:03 PM on October 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why haven't rats with partially formed wings been found? Then you would have to find another with slightly more developed wings, and so on until you come to bats. How would marsupials develop pouches? How would every plant on every leaf develop a ring of cells, one cell thick with the sole purpose of strangling the leaf? Why are there still bacteria, wouldn't they have developed into more "advance" life forms?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:25 PM on October 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why haven't rats with partially formed wings been found?

Why would rats grow wings?  How does this falsify evolution?

Then you would have to find another with slightly more developed wings, and so on until you come to bats.

But bats didn't evolve from rats...

How would marsupials develop
pouches?


They evolved!

Why are there still bacteria, wouldn't they have developed into more "advance" life forms?

NOt according to the theory of evolution!  

Now, are you going to answer my questions?  How do you explain the 100s of thousands of clearly transitional fossils we do have?  How do you explain the series of transitional fossils, like those going from fish to amphibian or from reptile to mammal?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:15 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have to agree with Demon38 - there is an abundance of 'transitional fossils', and more being found all the time.  In fact, there is quite a line of transitional fossil evidence leading to the evolution of modern humans.  The 'Talk Origins' website has an excellent article on this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

Time and time again I've seen comments by Creationists that show they don't understand how evolution works.  Environmental forces, competition among species for survival to live long enough to reproduce, competition for food, being able to survive better not only against preditors, but also against desease.  

In a nutshell, it all boils down to being able to pass your genetic makup to the next generation.  To reproduce more successfully than your competitor.  If an individual happens to have a slightly different characteristic/trait, due to genetic mutation, that allows it to compete and to reproduce more successfully, then its offspring that inherit this trait will have an edge over those that don't have the beneficial trait.  The new trait may be something as simple as giving the individual slightly better camouflage to survive from preditors, or make the individual more attractive to a mate.  Mutations that give a population a survival advantage are favored - a process Darwin called Natural Selection.  When a mutation shifts from being rare to common the population can be said to have 'evolved'.

The species doen't have any control over how it evolves.  Environmental and competitive forces drive the process of which mutations are favored.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:12 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:15 PM on October 11, 2007 :
Why haven't rats with partially formed wings been found?

Why would rats grow wings?  How does this falsify evolution?

Then you would have to find another with slightly more developed wings, and so on until you come to bats.

But bats didn't evolve from rats...

How would marsupials develop
pouches?


They evolved!

Why are there still bacteria, wouldn't they have developed into more "advance" life forms?

NOt according to the theory of evolution!  

Now, are you going to answer my questions?  How do you explain the 100s of thousands of clearly transitional fossils we do have?  How do you explain the series of transitional fossils, like those going from fish to amphibian or from reptile to mammal?  



Ok, if you want to pick ove terms, rat like animals.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:25 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, if you want to pick ove terms, rat like animals.

OK, I'm losing track of your original point.  If you're asking why we don't have fossils of transitional species leading to bats, the answer is that bats are small and have delicate skeletons, they don't fossilize easily.
But new technology is being used to trace the origins of bats, see:
Bat Evolution

Now, are you going to answer any of our questions?  How do you explain the 100s of thousands of clearly transitonal fossils already found?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:52 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long does it take things to become fossilized?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:20 PM on October 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long does it take things to become fossilized?

It varies, depends on a lot of things, how they are fossilized, where they are fossilized, for example.  And you do know that the great majority of organisms do NOT fossilize at all, they completely decay.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:01 PM on October 12, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.