|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:16:28 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
No confusion.
Yes, confusion. You clearly confused the two.
Well, no - you just choose to apply a different meaning to the term transitional when it comes to fossils. The topic is called 'Transitional fossils': are you saying this is a contradiction in terms?
Presumably you believe that, by your definition of transitional, there are no transitional fossils, since even if we did chance upon two fossils that were blood-related, we wouldn't be able to prove it anyway.
We can't prove that one fossil was directly related to another. Of course we can't. In the case of transitional (intermediate, if you will) fossils, the two species would be so many generations apart that it would be nigh on impossible, even if we could analyse the DNA.
But we can observe similarities between species in terms of their features, date of existence, geographical placement, etc. It's reasonable to conclude that a species of fish with legs was a transitional between fish and breathing creatures with legs, if the dating fits between the appearance of those features.
quote:
Say I saw a piece of black hair on the floor and I can not determine whose hair it is. Say I have 3 possible suspects. Just because I cannot determine whose hair it is does not mean the hair belongs to all three of them.
Huh?
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:35:23 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
...
Just look at this for example : quote:
So the change happened gradually, in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly, as researchers once had little choice but to believe, the authors of the new study say. (Anne Minard, Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument, National Geographic News, July 9, 2008.)
This is nothing more than a clear admission that little evidence exists in reality. "not suddenly, as researchers had little choice but to believe" means there was nothing of any great worth ever found to support anything other than sudden appearance! Amazing. A tacit admission yet still going down the Darwinist party line without a pause to reflect on what she just said. This is ubiquitous in Darwinist literature. Every new "missing link" is touted, then admitted to be lacking, then they shoot out another statement like the above. We know that - fossils of any kind are few and far between, so any fossil identified as a transitional form between two other fossils is a cause for celebration. Anyway, this example shows that the researchers had good cause to believe that the feature evolved, because the transitional recently found bolsters the argument.
quote:
Anyone with minor skills in reading and logic can see that it's an admission of the truth - there are no transitionals between major forms in the fossil record! Few have been found. But where we speculate that there are transitionals, and when we find some that justify the speculation, it's reasonable to conclude that there are more, and that the process is indeed evolution.
quote:
NG and the Darwinist literature is full of such claims of transitionals. Nothing you could ever get passed a good judge in a court if the laws of evidence were really applied! Oh really? A good judge like John E. Jones III?
quote:
After all, if evolution is correct, the first fish with legs had to be just another species of fish. That is what the theory calls for. Indeed and just how did the first fish that tried to leave the water survive as a water breather? Darwinists have never found a viable way out of that.What's so hard to accept? You forget that it is an incredibly gradual process. The process might have started by first taking a tiny amount of air while still living in water, and slowly evolving into a creature that could live completely outside the water.
quote:
And pray tell, why on earth would a well adapted fish choose to risk it's life in trying to leave the water in the first place!?! It wouldn't choose to - the group happened to survive, so continued.
quote:
Again, the only way one can even propose a transitional is to assume before hand that macro-evo is true. It's reasonable to hypothesise that something is true and then look to prove the hypothesis. Besides, we have found transitional forms where the hypothesis predicts they will exist.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 7:13:15 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Well, no - you just choose to apply a different meaning to the term transitional when it comes to fossils. The topic is called 'Transitional fossils': are you saying this is a contradiction in terms?
I chose to apply the correct meaning based on the word "transition."
quote:
Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.
...Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism at the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
[emphasis added]
(BTW, look up the word derived on wikipedia and read through that definition. Also notice how "primates and early humans" as stated above are allegedly our common ancestors).
This is what transitional always meant, it derives from the word "transition."
transition
quote:
movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another; change: the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
a passing from one key to another; modulation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transition?r=75
transitional
quote:
movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another; change: the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
a passing from one key to another; modulation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transitional?r=75
It's just that I chose to apply the correct definition and you did not.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/15/2008 7:20:34 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 7:28:55 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Well, no - you just choose to apply a different meaning to the term transitional when it comes to fossils. The topic is called 'Transitional fossils': are you saying this is a contradiction in terms?
I chose to apply the correct meaning based on the word "transition."
quote:
Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.
This is what transitional always meant, it derives from the word "transition." How is a fish with legs not a transitional species?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 7:31:02 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
How is a fish with legs not a transitional species?
If a particular fish dies before having any offspring, it's not a transitional. If the specie died and didn't have offspring, it's not a transitional.
How does a fish without legs grow legs (independent design or the DNA that already codes for it)? Can you demonstrate this in a lab? Do the legs suddenly appear from the previous fish to the next? Can you demonstrate this in a lab (independent design (ie:DNA insertion caused by human intervention))? How would this benefit the fish unless it simultaneously evolved the ability to breath outside of water? What evolved first, the legs or the ability to breath outside the water? Can you demonstrate this in a lab (Independent design)?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/15/2008 7:46:34 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 8:09:50 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
How is a fish with legs not a transitional species?
If a particular fish dies before having any offspring, it's not a transitional. If the specie died and didn't have offspring, it's not a transitional.
Ah, so. The mix-up comes again because creationists consistently forget that individuals do not evolve. Species evolve.
(and btw, the singular of "species" is "species". "Specie" refers to coinage not groups of living beings.)
A fossil is an individual--in this case a particular fish. It may well not have had any offspring.
But even though it did not personally pass on its traits, it can still be a transitional FORM, because when it was alive, it was part of a species. And other members of the species, which had the same FORM, were passing on those traits.
So, yes, the fossil of a particular fish can be a transitional FORM even if that particular fish had not offspring.
On a slightly larger scale, the same applies to species, because populations regularly divide into a variety of similar species. It may well be that the particular species of our particular fossil fish is not the direct ancestor of a later tetrapod species. But there were probably a group of sibling species with very similar FORM just as many species today have very similar form.
Consider some time in the far-off future when the animals we know as the cat family are extinct. But there is a species which is a modified form of a cheetah. The theory of evolution would predict an ancestor of that species with many of the traits we associate with the cat family. And if a paleontologist of that day discovered the fossil of a tiger, it would be hailed as a "transitional species". Nor would that be wrong. For while the tiger was not the direct ancestor, it is close enough in FORM to the real ancestor (the cheetah) to be representative of that era in the ancestry of the living species.
quote:
How does a fish without legs grow legs (independent design or the DNA that already codes for it)?
This question has nothing to do with the existence of the transitional form. The transitional forms exist irrespective of how the traits came to be.
Descent with modification is a reasonable hypothesis for how they came to be since we see that happening in the present and have no reason to exclude it from the past.
quote:
How would this benefit the fish unless it simultaneously evolved the ability to breath outside of water? What evolved first, the legs or the ability to breath outside the water?
Probably the ability to breathe outside of water. Many ancient fish had lungs although they did not have incipient "legs" and are not considered ancestral to tetrapods.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 8:25:27 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
How is a fish with legs not a transitional species?
If a particular fish dies before having any offspring, it's not a transitional. If the specie died and didn't have offspring, it's not a transitional.
How does a fish without legs grow legs (independent design or the DNA that already codes for it)? Incremental change.
quote:
Can you demonstrate this in a lab? No. Takes too many generations to complete the incremental change. Although experiments such as the interesting bacteria experiment give strength to the idea that incremental change is a witnessed fact.
quote:
Do the legs suddenly appear from the previous fish to the next? This seems unlikely but difficult to prove without more transitional fossils to show the incremental change.
quote:
Can you demonstrate this in a lab See above.
quote:
How would this benefit the fish unless it simultaneously evolved the ability to breath outside of water? Perhaps 'legs' would be useful to some species which forage on the sea floor.
quote:
What evolved first, the legs or the ability to breath outside the water? Can you demonstrate this in a lab (Independent design)? I don't know, although I don't think it matters. With incremental change, a fish might have acquired the ability to gain a tiny amount of oxygen from the air, to supplement the gills, and might have gained the ability to move more easily on the sea floor. Both could be beneficial to a fish in shallow water, and both might ultimately have resulted in complete legs and breathing alone, but they didn't need to evolve in completion instantaneously and simultaneously to be beneficial.
If you accept incremental change, giving us the variety we see in the species descended from the ark, then you accept that some change can happen. There is no reason why this change should not extend over a long period of time to ultimately lead to distinct species.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 10:17:59 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Ah, so. The mix-up comes again because creationists consistently forget that individuals do not evolve. Species evolve.
The mix up is not on my part. You confused the two, you misused the word transition. Wikipedia is an evolutionist site.
quote:
(and btw, the singular of "species" is "species". "Specie" refers to coinage not groups of living beings.)
Species
quote:
noun, plural -cies, adjective
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species?r=75
My mistake. I'm willing to admit if I make a mistake. Most evolutionists are hard pressed to admit a mistake. You clearly confused transitional with intermediate. Keep confusing the two, it's your credibility that's being destroyed (I don't mind).
quote:
A fossil is an individual--in this case a particular fish. It may well not have had any offspring.
But even though it did not personally pass on its traits, it can still be a transitional FORM, because when it was alive, it was part of a species. And other members of the species, which had the same FORM, were passing on those traits.
The fossil would not be a transitional and if the species died, it would not be a transitional. Again, the mix up is on your part.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/15/2008 10:39:40 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 10:30:36 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Incremental change.
Show me incremental change producing legs in a lab.
quote:
No. Takes too many generations to complete the incremental change.
Unfalsifiable speculation.
quote:
Although experiments such as the interesting bacteria experiment give strength to the idea that incremental change is a witnessed fact.
Show me a bacteria producing legs then.
quote:
Perhaps 'legs' would be useful to some species which forage on the sea floor.
Perhaps you can demonstrate their evolution/origin in a lab?
quote:
I don't know, although I don't think it matters. With incremental change, a fish might have acquired the ability to gain a tiny amount of oxygen from the air, to supplement the gills, and might have gained the ability to move more easily on the sea floor. Both could be beneficial to a fish in shallow water, and both might ultimately have resulted in complete legs and breathing alone, but they didn't need to evolve in completion instantaneously and simultaneously to be beneficial.
More unfalsifiable, faith based speculation. Show me in a lab.
quote:
If you accept incremental change, giving us the variety we see in the species descended from the ark, then you accept that some change can happen. There is no reason why this change should not extend over a long period of time to ultimately lead to distinct species.
The point is that this type of change has never been observed to produce new limbs, appendages, organs, body plans, organ systems, or the DNA for them so there is no reason for me to believe that it has.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/15/2008 10:42:09 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 10:44:56 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Species
quote:
quote:
noun, plural -cies, adjective
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species?r=75
That's right. Per your link, which is the definition of species in the singular form, the plural form is also species:
quote:
spe·cies ... noun, plural -cies, adjective
–noun To refer to a single organism of a species you would use individual or specimen etc, not specie or species.
quote:
quote:
A fossil is an individual--in this case a particular fish. It may well not have had any offspring.
But even though it did not personally pass on its traits, it can still be a transitional FORM, because when it was alive, it was part of a species. And other members of the species, which had the same FORM, were passing on those traits.
The fossil would not be a transitional and if the species died, it would not be a transitional. Again, the mix up is on your part.
Remember: species means the population, not the specific fossil found.
A transitional fossil is an example of the population of that species in existence at the time. While we may not be able to prove that the specific fossil has a bloodline traceable to individuals from the before and after species, we can determine from its traits, dating, etc that it is one of a species that was transitional between those before and after species.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 10:54:13 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
If a particular fish dies before having any offspring, it's not a transitional. If the specie died and didn't have offspring, it's not a transitional.
That wasn't the question. If a fish with legs is not a transitional between amphibians and fish then what would a real transitional look like?
quote:
How does a fish without legs grow legs (independent design or the DNA that already codes for it)?
There was never a fish that did not have legs that then grew legs. The line between fin and leg is arbitrary given the transitional fossils.
quote:
Can you demonstrate this in a lab?
Demonstrate what? That there was a fish with legs? Yes.
quote:
Do the legs suddenly appear from the previous fish to the next?
That's a silly question. Are fossils supposed to fade in and out of existence as we look at them? Are they supposed to morph from fish without legs to fish with legs right before our eyes?
Do we have thousands of transitionals from fin to leg? No, but there are several fossil species which illustrate this transition.
quote:
How would this benefit the fish unless it simultaneously evolved the ability to breath outside of water?
There are lobe finned fish right now that have a lung, the most famous of which is the lungfish. The lung also functions as a swim bladder.
quote:
What evolved first, the legs or the ability to breath outside the water? Can you demonstrate this in a lab (Independent design)?
Lungs, due to the fact that fish have lungs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 10:54:17 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
That's right. Per your link, which is the definition of species in the singular form, the plural form is also species:
I admit to my previous mistake.
quote:
To refer to a single organism of a species you would use individual or specimen etc, not specie or species.
I know.
quote:
Remember: species means the population, not the specific fossil found.
I know.
quote:
A transitional fossil is an example of the population of that species in existence at the time.
That would be a transitional species.
quote:
While we may not be able to prove that the specific fossil has a bloodline traceable to individuals from the before and after species, we can determine from its traits, dating, etc that it is one of a species that was transitional between those before and after species.
You don't "determine" from the traits, you make speculations based on traits.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 10:56:31 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
There was never a fish that did not have legs that then grew legs. The line between fin and leg is arbitrary given the transitional fossils.
At one time they allegedly did not have legs. At another time, they allegedly did. Show me evolution producing legs.
quote:
Demonstrate what? That there was a fish with legs? Yes.
That's not what I asked you to demonstrate. You know better.
quote:
That's a silly question. Are fossils supposed to fade in and out of existence as we look at them? Are they supposed to morph from fish without legs to fish with legs right before our eyes?
Do we have thousands of transitionals from fin to leg? No, but there are several fossil species which illustrate this transition.
Can you show evolution producing this alleged transition in a lab.
quote:
There are lobe finned fish right now that have a lung, the most famous of which is the lungfish. The lung also functions as a swim bladder.
Show me evolution producing such things.
quote:
quote:
What evolved first, the legs or the ability to breath outside the water? Can you demonstrate this in a lab (Independent design)?
Lungs, due to the fact that fish have lungs.
That's not what I asked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:02:01 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Incremental change.
Show me incremental change producing legs in a lab.
We can't.
quote:
quote:
No. Takes too many generations to complete the incremental change.
Unfalsifiable speculation.
We can observe incremental change. We can extrapolate from this witnessed evolution that, given time, change between the first and last individuals will be significant. A little like compounding interest, if you will.
quote:
quote:
Although experiments such as the interesting bacteria experiment give strength to the idea that incremental change is a witnessed fact.
Show me a bacteria producing legs then.
I can't.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps 'legs' would be useful to some species which forage on the sea floor.
Perhaps you can demonstrate their evolution/origin in a lab? I can't.
quote:
quote:
I don't know, although I don't think it matters. With incremental change, a fish might have acquired the ability to gain a tiny amount of oxygen from the air, to supplement the gills, and might have gained the ability to move more easily on the sea floor. Both could be beneficial to a fish in shallow water, and both might ultimately have resulted in complete legs and breathing alone, but they didn't need to evolve in completion instantaneously and simultaneously to be beneficial.
More unfalsifiable, faith based speculation. Show me in a lab.
I can't show you the transition happening in real life. But I can show you the fossil evidence that illustrates some of the stages of evolution.
You accept micro-evolution as the explanation for the variation from the ancestor kinds, do you not? But this can't be proved to the levels you demand above - so why do you accept it?
If micro-evolution can generate the huge variety we see within just a few generations (for example, humans have depicted cats in their various forms for around 5,000 years, leaving just ~1,000 years for all that variation to occur, yet strangely, by comparison, virtually no variation since), then what amount of variation do you think will take place over the next 100,000,000 or so years?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:05:53 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
At one time they allegedly did not have legs. At another time, they allegedly did. Show me evolution producing legs.
You just showed it yourself. There were fish with fins, then fish with fins which functioned as fins and then legs that did not function as fins. That is the demonstration.
quote:
Can you show evolution producing this alleged transition in a lab.
No more than you can produce any other historical occurence. Do historians have to reproduce the Civil War in the lab?
The experiment was already done and the results are found in the fossil record.
quote:
Show me evolution producing such things.
Already have. In the fossil record.
quote:
That's not what I asked.
Lungs evolved first. Why? Because lungs are found in basal lobe finned fish. What more do you want?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:07:09 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
You accept micro-evolution as the explanation for the variation from the ancestor kinds, do you not? But this can't be proved to the levels you demand above - so why do you accept it?
If micro-evolution can generate the huge variety we see within just a few generations (for example, humans have depicted cats in their various forms for around 5,000 years, leaving just ~1,000 years for all that variation to occur, yet strangely, by comparison, virtually no variation since), then what amount of variation do you think will take place over the next 100,000,000 or so years?
Evolution has been observed to produce change within organisms, I have no problems accepting that. Evolution has never been observed to produce new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA for them. Speculating that it has requires faith.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:09:24 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
You just showed it yourself. There were fish with fins, then fish with fins which functioned as fins and then legs that did not function as fins. That is the demonstration.
That's not what I asked.
quote:
No more than you can produce any other historical occurence. Do historians have to reproduce the Civil War in the lab?
We can reproduce other wars and we can reproduce the mechanisms behind wars (ie: shooting a gun).
quote:
The experiment was already done and the results are found in the fossil record.
Show me evolution producing new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA for them.
quote:
Lungs evolved first. Why? Because lungs are found in basal lobe finned fish. What more do you want?
I asked what evolved first, the ability to breath air (ie: outside of water) or legs (then answer the other questions I asked).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:09:43 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
A transitional fossil is an example of the population of that species in existence at the time.
That would be a transitional species.
Oh good! So do you agree that a fossil of a fish with legs would represent a transitional species?
quote:
quote:
While we may not be able to prove that the specific fossil has a bloodline traceable to individuals from the before and after species, we can determine from its traits, dating, etc that it is one of a species that was transitional between those before and after species.
You don't "determine" from the traits, you make speculations based on traits.
Well, I suppose everything life is speculation. It's true, we must sometimes draw conclusions based on an educated guess.
Remember: we have witnessed incremental change. We see before us three fossils, which are dated in sequence, and which in chronological order demonstrate a transition from the first to the last. We put two and two together. We might be wrong, but consistently we identify new transitional species that increases the probability that macro-evolution is a sound theory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:11:25 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Oh good! So do you agree that a fossil of a fish with legs would represent a transitional species?
No, that's not what I said. A transitional species is a species with members that had offspring and some of those offspring eventually became a new species. One can speculate that a fish with legs is a transitional species, but it does not make it so.
quote:
Remember: we have witnessed incremental change.
Show me evolution producing new appendages, organs, organ systems, body plans, limbs, etc... or the DNA for them.
quote:
Well, I suppose everything life is speculation.
No, not everything is speculation. If I thew a ball in the air, it comes back down. That's not speculation, it's observable. UCD is mostly speculation though.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/15/2008 11:20:53 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:19:47 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
You accept micro-evolution as the explanation for the variation from the ancestor kinds, do you not? But this can't be proved to the levels you demand above - so why do you accept it?
If micro-evolution can generate the huge variety we see within just a few generations (for example, humans have depicted cats in their various forms for around 5,000 years, leaving just ~1,000 years for all that variation to occur, yet strangely, by comparison, virtually no variation since), then what amount of variation do you think will take place over the next 100,000,000 or so years?
Evolution has been observed to produce change within organisms, I have no problems accepting that. Evolution has never been observed to produce new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA for them. Speculating that it has requires faith.
We cannot observe that level of change happening in real time before our eyes, no.
But we observe a fraction of that change, and conclude that, time permitting, it will continue. We find fossils which neatly fit this explanation and which do not contradict the rules. There is an element of uncertainty in any conclusion, which is why scientific theories are not proven.
Evolution requires hundreds of millions of years to effect this kind of change. According to YEC, we've had only a few thousand years. What does YEC tell us to expect if the species on earth today are able to micro-evolve for hundreds of millions of years?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:23:54 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Evolution requires hundreds of millions of years to effect this kind of change.
Speculation.
quote:
But we observe a fraction of that change, and conclude that, time permitting, it will continue.
Cars change over time (they break down, they accumulate degradation), we never conclude that your car will eventually develop appendages, limbs, etc... Just because things change does not mean they will produce new limbs, organs, organ systems, appendages, body plans, or the DNA for them. Show me evolution producing what it claims to have produced.
Do we ever observe evolution producing a fraction of a flagellum? What fraction does it produce first? How do you know this "fraction" will eventually become a flagellum if you can't see it evolving into a flagellum?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:53:07 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Oh good! So do you agree that a fossil of a fish with legs would represent a transitional species?
No, that's not what I said. A transitional species is a species with members that had offspring and some of those offspring eventually became a new species. One can speculate that a fish with legs is a transitional species, but it does not make it so. We cannot prove it absolutely, no. But we can 'speculate' with a level of confidence, which is bolstered by the discovery of further transitional species, and the complete absence of any discovery of species which contradict the 'rules' of evolutionary theory.
quote:
quote:
Remember: we have witnessed incremental change.
Show me evolution producing new appendages, organs, organ systems, body plans, limbs, etc... or the DNA for them. I've already said we can't replicate this to happen before your very eyes. But we have all the evidence left behind.
It's all about probabilities. How do you think justice works? We cannot perfectly re-create what happened at a crime scene. If justice required the level of proof you put on evolutionists, no-one would ever be found guilty.
quote:
quote:
Well, I suppose everything life is speculation.
No, not everything is speculation. If I thew a ball in the air, it comes back down. That's not speculation, it's observable. UCD is mostly speculation though.
It's all about probabilities. Nothing is absolutely certain, including the ball returning to Earth. You can't be *certain* that if it was done 1 million times, it would return to earth every single time, unless you actually do it 1 million times. So there is a level of probability (faith, if you like) attached to everything.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:56:42 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
Evolution requires hundreds of millions of years to effect this kind of change.
Speculation.
quote:
But we observe a fraction of that change, and conclude that, time permitting, it will continue.
Cars change over time (they break down, they accumulate degradation), we never conclude that your car will eventually develop appendages, limbs, etc... Just because things change does not mean they will produce new limbs, organs, organ systems, appendages, body plans, or the DNA for them. Show me evolution producing what it claims to have produced. I can show you that evolution is the best (most probable) explanation for what has been produced. I can't show you a fish evolving into a fish with legs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 11:59:55 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
No, that's not what I said. A transitional species is a species with members that had offspring and some of those offspring eventually became a new species. One can speculate that a fish with legs is a transitional species, but it does not make it so.
Back to transitional species.
You accept micro-evolution. OK. What then, is a fish with 'legs'? Is it still a fish (so a result of micro-evolution) or is it a different species?
How can we determine whether it is a unique species or an adaptation of an earlier species?
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
