RE: Transitional Fossils (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 5:17:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ianz
quote:


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.



That's what I said. Contemporary "transitional" forms are not really transitional yet, hence the quotes around it. On a clamogram the "transitional form" (it's in quotes because it's not really a transitional form yet) represents an organism at the point where individual lineages diverge, but in order for it to be an actual transitional form it needs to be an actual transition from one form to another (as in, it needs to actually be at the point where individual lineages diverge). That's what Wikipedia is saying.



ianz -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 5:20:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
UCD predicts a nested hierarchy for species that are incapable of horizontal gene transfer which includes all metazoans. You can try to claim otherwise, but you can't change the facts.


There is no reason for UCD to predict any such thing.

Does UCD need a reason for making this prediction? It's still a prediction.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 5:22:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ianz
Does UCD need a reason for making this prediction? It's still a prediction.


Yes it does need a reason to make such a prediction. Otherwise, I can claim that creationism and intelligent design predict the same thing. I can always claim, "whatever the evidence is, that's what my theory (ie: intelligent design or creationism) predicts." The question is, why should such a theory predict the evidence as we see it? The same is true for evolution. If there is no reason for evolution to predict something then it shouldn't (and hence doesn't) make any such prediction.



ianz -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 5:31:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: ianz
Does UCD need a reason for making this prediction? It's still a prediction.


Yes it does need a reason to make such a prediction. Otherwise, I can claim that creationism and intelligent design predict the same thing. I can always claim, "whatever the evidence is, that's what my theory (ie: intelligent design or creationism) predicts." The question is, why should such a theory predict the evidence as we see it? The same is true for evolution. If there is no reason for evolution to predict something then it shouldn't (and hence doesn't) make any such prediction.

?

Well ok - since we have a significant lack of transitional fossils, UCD needs to make the prediction that there were transitional species between those we see in the fossil record.



drj11 -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 5:32:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: ianz
Does UCD need a reason for making this prediction? It's still a prediction.


Yes it does need a reason to make such a prediction. Otherwise, I can claim that creationism and intelligent design predict the same thing. I can always claim, "whatever the evidence is, that's what my theory (ie: intelligent design or creationism) predicts." The question is, why should such a theory predict the evidence as we see it? The same is true for evolution. If there is no reason for evolution to predict something then it shouldn't (and hence doesn't) make any such prediction.


Of course it has a reason, and you know what it is. You just won't let it through the creationism-blood-brain barrier...

Given the way traits are passed on from parent to offspring, and given the way traits become fixed in or disappear from populations, what kind of hierarchy of organisms, if any, would you say evolution predicts? What would it look like?



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 5:53:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
It's not a lie, but I suppose you get mad when people refute the evolutionary lie with truth. You don't want anyone to promulgate anything that may contradict your bias, censorship of that which disagrees with you is what you want.


Go ahead, keep spreading the lie that the theory of evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. It just proves my point that creationism can only be supported by falsehoods.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 6:07:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
So you point me to a creature that can survive out of water. What's your point? Are you telling me this is a transitional? Are you saying this species will eventually riside entirely on land?


If a fish with legs is not a transitional fossil then what would a real transitional fossil look like?

quote:

So there are fish today that can survive on land? Are saying you have proof absolute that any of these fish, past or present is a transitional?


Every species is transitional between it's parents generation and their offspring.

quote:

That's what I'm pointing out and that's why you can never claim anything is a transitional between major forms. Pointing to a fish that possibly adapted in some small way (or was simply created that way) is hardly macro-evo.


But it is a transitional form.

quote:

The ubiquitous extrapolation from micro to macro is not science either. It's conjecture.


It has been observed multiple times.

quote:

So as Behe points out in the Edge... there are limits to what is possible in a genome.


The diversity seen among living and fossilized organisms is the limit of what a genome can do. That is, unless you can point me to a species that does not use the universal codons.

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 in reference to Goldshmidt's "Hopeless Monsters" which formed in a single generation instead of over many generations.

quote:

Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for the evidence of links never found. - Lunn


Quite ironic given the fact that the links have been given in this very thread.

quote:

If Darwinism were true, we should have found billions of links, for there had to have been billions of transitionals. There are an estimated 13 million life forms on this planet - do have any idea how many transitionals that would require? Obviously not.


Existence does not guarantee preservation. Preservation does not guarantee that the fossil has survived geologic weathering and recycling. Survival does not guarantee discovery given the scant percentage of fossil bearing strata that has actually been dug through.

A good example is the passenger pigeon. It went extince in the very recent past. At one time this bird numbered in the billions and their flocks blotted out the sun for hours at a time when the migrated. Do you know how many passenger pigeon fossils have been found? Zero. According to your logic their existence in the past is a figment of our imagination.

quote:

How many real proveable links are there between major forms? None.


Why isn't Tiktaalik rosae a tetrapod transitional? Why isn't a fish with legs a transition between fish and terrestrial tetrapods? If T. rosae is not a transitional then what would a real transitional look like?

quote:

You people point me to fish that can survive on land but completely miss the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these are transitionals.


T. rosae is a transitional.

quote:

Any creationist will simply that God made them such and any IDist will say that as I have - no evidence that it is in fact such.


IOW, creationism and ID are unfalsifiable. They are nothing but dogma that has to be protected from the evidence.

quote:

And you have no basis in factual step by mutational step evidence at all to say the contrary except of course your a priori committement to materialsim! Just as Lewontin says.


You don't need to know a blow by blow in order to conclude that a fossil is intermediate.

quote:

Restating you assertions ad infinitum or pointing to fish alive today do nothing to support your claims. It's pure speculation and if you were honest you would admit it. As have others.


It is not speculation that T. rosae is transitional. It has a mixture of more basal lobe finned fish and tetrapod features. It is transitional by definition.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 6:28:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
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!?!
I don't know, why don't you ask one of these guys?
So you point me to a creature that can survive out of water. What's your point? Are you telling me this is a transitional? Are you saying this species will eventually riside entirely on land?


You ridiculed the idea that well adapted fish would 'choose' to risk their lives by leaving water. I and others have simply demonstrated that many species of fish evidently make that choice. Your ridicule is misplaced.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 10:33:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Of course it has a reason, and you know what it is. You just won't let it through the creationism-blood-brain barrier...

Given the way traits are passed on from parent to offspring, and given the way traits become fixed in or disappear from populations, what kind of hierarchy of organisms, if any, would you say evolution predicts? What would it look like?


Not a nested hierarchy. We never see a nested hierarchy within species. For instance, it's possible for someone to share a characteristic with a cousin (ie: black eyes) that he does not share with a brother. This is a violation of this alleged hierarchy. We do not observe a nested hierarchy within a species and there is no reason to assume that evolution should predict any such thing.

I already refuted the nested hierarchy nonsense here

Link
Link
Link

There is absolutely no reason for evolution to predict a nested hierarchy.

I would say evolution predicts nothing. It doesn't predict that things should be organized at all, for random guided processes do not care to organize things in any sort of nested hierarchy or in any way whatsoever. Certainly, it doesn't help survivability to do so, natural selection does not care to do so.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 10:36:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Go ahead, keep spreading the lie that the theory of evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. It just proves my point that creationism can only be supported by falsehoods.


Keep spreading the lie that the nonsense of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. It just proves my point that evolution really predicts nothing.

I guess you can't stand anyone refuting evolution and not being censored.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 10:42:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ianz
Well ok - since we have a significant lack of transitional fossils, UCD needs to make the prediction that there were transitional species between those we see in the fossil record.


That's not a prediction. Pre = before, a prediction is something that comes before. Claiming that something happened in the past is not a prediction. Claiming what we should find is. Evolution predicts nothing in terms of what we should find, it's unfalsifiable and hence makes no predictions.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. You claim that evolution needs no reason to make predictions, I prove that wrong, so you make up random responses with complete disregard to how illogical your responses are.

You: "evolution doesn't need to have a reason to make predictions"
Me: "Yes it does, otherwise I can claim anything predicts whatever the evidence is"
You: "Ok, then since there is a lack of transitionals, evolution needs to predict something unfalsifiable"



gluadys -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 11:18:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Not a nested hierarchy. We never see a nested hierarchy within species. For instance, it's possible for someone to share a characteristic with a cousin (ie: black eyes) that he does not share with a brother. This is a violation of this alleged hierarchy.


No, variation within a species is not a violation of a nested hierarchy because of the way gene flow and Mendelian inheritance works. The fact that one brother does not have the same coloured eyes is simply a matter of probability given the heterozygous gene pairing of at least one of his parents.

I noted an interesting sentence in one of your links:

quote:

Again, in your example there is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy. Likewise, with evolution, there is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy so we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy. Natural selection does not care to produce a nested hierarchy, it only cares about survival.


That is true. There is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy. Natural selection does not care to produce a nested hierarchy. Nevertheless we get a nested hierarchy. This is due to the mechanisms of inheritance and the obstruction of gene flow between species. It works automatically without conscious effort.

In another of the linked threads, you made this statement:
quote:

Plus, people get to arbitrarily choose which characteristics to include in the classification system and which ones to exclude.


and this one:

quote:

They claim that two organisms who have a further relationship with one another should have no traits in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share. So this is how they would try to classify the organisms.


Both of these statements are untrue.

In the first case, the choice of characteristics to use in classification is not arbitrary. The characteristics being compared must be homologous.

In the second case, it is not true that more distantly related organisms can share no traits in common with one or a few members of a different clade. But they must not share the traits which are known as synapomorphies. As stated in the following link "only synapomorphic character states can be used as evidence that taxa are related."

Other characteristics may turn up in various clades (see sympleisomorphies), and for that very reason they are not evidence of a taxonomic relationship.

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Biology/defApomorphy.html


quote:

There is absolutely no reason for evolution to predict a nested hierarchy.


So long as evolution depends on inheritability of traits and lack of gene flow between species, a nested hierarchy is inevitable and therefore predicted.



gluadys -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 11:21:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Claiming that something happened in the past is not a prediction.


But claiming that there is undiscovered evidence of the past event is.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 11:49:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Not a nested hierarchy. We never see a nested hierarchy within species.


Of course not. The prediction applies above the level of species, not within species. The hierarchy is produced because there is no way for horizontal transfer of DNA between species. This is what produces the nested hierarchy.

Please show me how the mechanisms of evolution could transfer the genes for feathers from birds to bats. If no such evolutionary mechanism exists then a nested hierarchy is expected and predicted.

quote:

I would say evolution predicts nothing.


Then you would be wrong.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 11:50:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Keep spreading the lie that the nonsense of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. It just proves my point that evolution really predicts nothing.


You prove my point more every day. If the theory of evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy then why is this concept applied in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics? Why do scientists expect to see a nested hierarchy due to evolution if it is not a prediction of evolution?



Embedded -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 12:55:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Not a nested hierarchy. We never see a nested hierarchy within species.


Of course not. The prediction applies above the level of species, not within species. The hierarchy is produced because there is no way for horizontal transfer of DNA between species. This is what produces the nested hierarchy.


Method, you are mistaken. There is a well established body of evidence supporting horizontal gene transfer. See here (Wikipedia) for an introduction.

quote:


Please show me how the mechanisms of evolution could transfer the genes for feathers from birds to bats. If no such evolutionary mechanism exists then a nested hierarchy is expected and predicted.

quote:

I would say evolution predicts nothing.


Then you would be wrong.


As far as we know it would be very unlikely for us to see a transfer of genes between birds and bats (why that example?). There is, however, horizontal gene transfer (HGT). It is especially prevalent in bacteria. There is also good evidence to support that we eukaryotes are a result of HGT though not so important to our later development. The fact of HGT certainly obscures constructing a simple and clear phylogenetic tree of nested heirarchies for microbes. However it is not the case for larger multicelled organisms where the barriers to HGT are much much higher. You should also read up on Endosymbiotic Theory and the work of Lynn Margulis.

While HGT is a fact it does not in any way negate the facts of the nested heirarchy of the phylogenetic tree... it muddies it a bit at the microbe level. It should also be noted that all this research and data was discovered and written about by scientists. It was not covered up or explained away. All evolutionary biologists acknowledge and accept the fact of HGT (how could they not?)... the only contention within the scientific community is the relative importance of HGT and Endosymbiotic theory to the history of lifes development.



GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 1:04:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
You ridiculed the idea that well adapted fish would 'choose' to risk their lives by leaving water. I and others have simply demonstrated that many species of fish evidently make that choice. Your ridicule is misplaced.
You and the others are still mistaken. You have not yet got the point here. You cannot point at a specific species and just say 'it's transitional because it shares traits with others'. Sorry but no.

In the real world, you actually need proof believe it or not. Ask your science teacher, maybe they would agree.

Then you imply that these fish you pointed out actually made a choice to 'risk their lives'.
What in the world are you thinking!?
Do you really believe that?
Isn't it obvious that fish that do so are already adapted and programmed to behave that way? Like your examples?

How many Sharks, for example, do you see in an average year trying to get out of the water and walk around? None.
How many Cod? Trout? ... Only creatures already made for such do this. The rest croak and always will.

Why would a sea dweller just develop legs in the first place?
Just sorta happens?
By trying to get out on land?
Would you develop gills by trying to live under water?
Q: How many human generations of trying would it take to succeed?
A: Would never succeed. Has nothing to do with trying.

Yet this is precisely what Darwinists pretend as the evolution of the whale - little creature got out of the water, decided to go back becomes huge creature - amazing story but it's pure fairy tale worthy of the brothers Grimm!

A non functional beginning of a gill mutation would be nothing more than a tumor or a useless growth. Get it?

And why are the so many millions of other fish species still in the water? The Darwinist answer will always be speculative stories about rm + ns. No proof. Just bare assertions.

Again, the species you pointed out - are they transitionals? You didn't answer. If so where are their predecessors?
Morphing animations or pics created by artists don't count as proof, in case you didn't know.

Not one of you has provided a grain of real evidence or proof. You point out existing species. I could point out more myself and so what?!

Speculation is not evidence. Neither is bare assertion.

Show us the step by step path from gill breather, finned to lung breather legged - in fact, not fiction. Just so stories are not evidence of anything but vivid imagination. What are the rm + ns steps involved in transformaing a frog into a prince? - which is about exactly what Evo claims happened. Too tough? Ok, gill, finned to lung, legged will do. I will need empirical evidence, thank you.

Again:
quote:

"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
Now there's an honest evolutionist.
quote:

# Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
# Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord. - David Berlinski
Sad but true.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 1:22:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
You and the others are still mistaken. You have not yet got the point here. You cannot point at a specific species and just say 'it's transitional because it shares traits with others'. Sorry but no.

In the real world, you actually need proof believe it or not. Ask your science teacher, maybe they would agree.


What would that proof be? What else, besides the age and morphological features of the fossil, can we go with?

If a fish with legs is not a transitional between fish and terrestrial tetrapods then what would a real transitional look like?

quote:

And why are the so many millions of other fish species still in the water?


Because there are still niches to fill in the water. At the time when the first tetrapods were evolving there were a lot of empty niches on land. They evolved to fill those niches, and the lobe finned fish were in the best position to evolve into those niches.

quote:

The Darwinist answer will always be speculative stories about rm + ns. No proof. Just bare assertions.


The fossils are not speculative or assertions. They are very real.

quote:

Again, the species you pointed out - are they transitionals? You didn't answer. If so where are their predecessors?


Without DNA there is no way of knowing the direct relationships between these fossils. We can only go with morphological features. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a mixture of tetrapod and lobe finned fish features if tetrapods evolved from these fish. Guess what we see? A mixture of tetrapod and fish features. A fulfilled prediction.

quote:

Morphing animations or pics created by artists don't count as proof, in case you didn't know.


Neither does naysaying.

Either give us the criteria you are using to judge which fossils are transitional and which are not or simply admit that you will never accept any fossil as transitional no matter how transitional it really is.

quote:

Not one of you has provided a grain of real evidence or proof. You point out existing species. I could point out more myself and so what?!


So why don't we see bats with feathers? Can you explain that?

quote:

Show us the step by step path from gill breather, finned to lung breather legged - in fact, not fiction.


One of those steps is Tiktaalik rosae, as has already been stated.



drj11 -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 1:24:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
You ridiculed the idea that well adapted fish would 'choose' to risk their lives by leaving water. I and others have simply demonstrated that many species of fish evidently make that choice. Your ridicule is misplaced.
You and the others are still mistaken. You have not yet got the point here. You cannot point at a specific species and just say 'it's transitional because it shares traits with others'. Sorry but no.

In the real world, you actually need proof believe it or not. Ask your science teacher, maybe they would agree.


Huh... go figure. What world do you live in then... you know.. the one where you declare all your own assertions as axiomatic?



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 1:25:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Embedded
As far as we know it would be very unlikely for us to see a transfer of genes between birds and bats (why that example?).


And this is true of all metazoans, is it not? Therefore, metazoans should fall into a nested hierarchy.

The only HGT I am aware of in metazoans is between the host and their symbionts (e.g mitochondria). Therefore, we should not see a vertebrate fossil that violates the nested hierarchy, right?



Embedded -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 7:07:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

quote:

ORIGINAL: Embedded
As far as we know it would be very unlikely for us to see a transfer of genes between birds and bats (why that example?).


And this is true of all metazoans, is it not? Therefore, metazoans should fall into a nested hierarchy.


As do microbes just not as sharply defined.

quote:


The only HGT I am aware of in metazoans is between the host and their symbionts (e.g mitochondria). Therefore, we should not see a vertebrate fossil that violates the nested hierarchy, right?


There are none that I have ever heard of. For one thing... the nested heirarchy in the most basic sense is something we(humans) construct to simply organize the data. This was done long before Darwin arrived. I think even the bible does some classification and the creationists even do a sort of heirarchy and general sorting of "kinds". Again... only in the most basic sense.

The endosymbiosis of mitochondria in the eukaryotic cell was, I think, probably long before multicelled eukaryotes and metazoans.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 7:44:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Embedded
As do microbes just not as sharply defined.


Due to HGT. There is no HGT between metazoan species.

quote:

For one thing... the nested heirarchy in the most basic sense is something we(humans) construct to simply organize the data. This was done long before Darwin arrived.


The nested hierarchy is an objective reality. The human contrivance is in naming species groups. The fact that all animals with hair also have three middle ear bones is not a human contrivance, but naming them mammals is. This is the trouble that baraminology runs into, all taxonomic divisions above the level of species are contrivances and somewhat arbitrary. This is also why biologists have moved away from taxonomy to cladistics.

quote:

The endosymbiosis of mitochondria in the eukaryotic cell was, I think, probably long before multicelled eukaryotes and metazoans.


There is transfer of mitochondrial DNA into the host's genome. These sequences are called numt's (nuclear mitochondrial DNA). It is interesting to note that these can be used as phylogenetic markers much like ERV's.



ianz -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 8:29:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:

ORIGINAL: ianz
Well ok - since we have a significant lack of transitional fossils, UCD needs to make the prediction that there were transitional species between those we see in the fossil record.


That's not a prediction. Pre = before, a prediction is something that comes before. Claiming that something happened in the past is not a prediction. Claiming what we should find is. Evolution predicts nothing in terms of what we should find, it's unfalsifiable and hence makes no predictions.
It certainly is a prediction. I predict that if I search through the archives, I will find that at least one of my ancestors was illegitimate. (I have no idea how many if any were.) That's a prediction. Before tiktaalik was identified, it was predicted that a transitional species would be identified showing the gradualk change from water to land-based animals.

quote:

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. You claim that evolution needs no reason to make predictions, I prove that wrong,
Well, to be fair, I couldn't quite understand what you meant by a 'reason', and once you clarified that, I understood what you meant and gave you one.

quote:

You: "evolution doesn't need to have a reason to make predictions"
What I thought you meant was that evolution had to have some reason for existence, or something - I mean it's pretty obvious that the reason for any prediction is that we don't know what ever it is we are predicting, hence the need for a prediction. It's so obvious that I didn't click this was what you were asking for.

quote:

Me: "Yes it does, otherwise I can claim anything predicts whatever the evidence is"
You: "Ok, then since there is a lack of transitionals, evolution needs to predict something unfalsifiable"
If you choose to use quote marks, you should actually quote the author. That is not a correct summary of my comments, and it certainly is not a quote.

Evolution theory predicts that transitional species will be identified where none have been found so far. This is a prediction.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/16/2008 11:17:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
In the real world, you actually need proof believe it or not.


I don't believe it, because it is not true. Proof is only for logic and mathematics. There is no proof in science, only strongly supported and tested theories. And evolution is very strong in this respect.

quote:

Ask your science teacher, maybe they would agree.


Since I was once a science teacher, I'll ask myself. 'Self, do you agree?' 'Well, me, speaking as someone with the qualifications of a science teacher, I would have to disagree.'

quote:

Then you imply that these fish you pointed out actually made a choice to 'risk their lives'.


You are the only one talking about choosing and choices. I put scare quotes around it, just to show how silly your fish stories are.

quote:

Would you develop gills by trying to live under water?
Q: How many human generations of trying would it take to succeed?
A: Would never succeed. Has nothing to do with trying.

Yet this is precisely what Darwinists pretend as the evolution of the whale - little creature got out of the water, decided to go back becomes huge creature - amazing story but it's pure fairy tale worthy of the brothers Grimm!

A non functional beginning of a gill mutation would be nothing more than a tumor or a useless growth. Get it?


I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get. Since whales don't have gills, the only person telling fairy stories is you.



gluadys -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 12:29:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
You and the others are still mistaken. You have not yet got the point here. You cannot point at a specific species and just say 'it's transitional because it shares traits with others'.


True enough. They have to be specific kinds of traits and they have to occur within a specific time frame. But the transitionals found do meet these requirements.


quote:

Then you imply that these fish you pointed out actually made a choice to 'risk their lives'.


Of course, they didn't actually 'choose'. They just did what came naturally given the physical features they were born with.


quote:

Isn't it obvious that fish that do so are already adapted and programmed to behave that way?


Indeed yes. It is well understood that the key transitions that made life on land possible, occurred in aquatic species while they were still aquatic. So, yes, by the time they began colonizing the land they were already adapted and programmed to behave that way.

quote:

Why would a sea dweller just develop legs in the first place?
Just sorta happens?


Yes. But the trait also has to be favored by selection. IOW it has to be beneficial to the sea dweller as a sea dweller.

quote:

By trying to get out on land?


No. It is able to get out on land because it already has rudimentary legs.

quote:

Would you develop gills by trying to live under water?
Q: How many human generations of trying would it take to succeed?
A: Would never succeed. Has nothing to do with trying.


Exactly. That is why whales do not have gills.

quote:

And why are the so many millions of other fish species still in the water?


Because there are plenty of viable niches in which to live in the water. There is no reason why all primitive fish should become land dwellers. Just as there was no reason for all Europeans to move to America, in spite of the fact that millions did.

quote:

Again, the species you pointed out - are they transitionals?


What characteristics would you expect in a fish->tetrapod transitional? Answer that, and I expect you have answered your own question.


quote:

Show us the step by step path from gill breather, finned to lung breather legged - in fact, not fiction.


The transitionals show us several of these steps.

1. A primitive lunged fish.
2. 1+ lobed-shaped fins
3. 2+ digitized fins
4. 3 + shoulder girdle
5. 4 + weight bearing limbs.

By this point the species is able to live on land. With its gills no longer necessary, the genes for making gills can be co-opted to make other structures in the jaw-throat area.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI