Transitional Fossils (Full Version)

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



Message

Method -> Transitional Fossils (7/3/2008 5:58:34 PM)

Many creationists claim that there are no transitional fossils. Scientists claim that there are many transitional fossils. To help settle the debate I would like creationists to give us a definition or description of what a transitional fossil is. In order to make this a productive thread I would like to focus on transitionals between humans the their supposed common ancestor with chimps. What features should such a transitional have?



hellohellohi -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/3/2008 6:14:30 PM)

We would have to think of some things that are unique BETWEEN people and chimps but aren't shared by other great apes.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/3/2008 6:22:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

We would have to think of some things that are unique BETWEEN people and chimps but aren't shared by other great apes.


People are great apes, but I see where you are going.

The one that stick out to most people is our ability to walk and our big brains. So an intermediate would have a mixture of these traits, would it not?



hellohellohi -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/3/2008 6:37:38 PM)

No, I don't think we need to look for a mixture of that -- these traits could be utterly unique to humans, utterly derived with respect to our branch.

Of course, it is true that chimps display that iconic intermediary between walking on twos and fours -- knuckle walking!

But a convincing common ancestor -- I mean the most proximal or recent ancestor! -- would have some traits that occur only between chimps and humans and not, say, gorillas and orangs. I think there are such traits. Actually, I ought to know them right of, but there not coming to mind.

Get what I'm saying though?

For instance, Australopithecus appears to be an ancestor of Homo, but not of chimps.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/3/2008 7:03:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

No, I don't think we need to look for a mixture of that -- these traits could be utterly unique to humans, utterly derived with respect to our branch.


Then we should see a mixture of derived and non-derived features, should we not?

quote:

Of course, it is true that chimps display that iconic intermediary between walking on twos and fours -- knuckle walking!


Gorillas do this as well. Orangutans do as well but it's rather comical. They spend a vast majority of their time in the trees. They rarely come down to the forest floor.

quote:

But a convincing common ancestor -- I mean the most proximal or recent ancestor! -- would have some traits that occur only between chimps and humans and not, say, gorillas and orangs. I think there are such traits. Actually, I ought to know them right of, but there not coming to mind.


Dentition comes to mind, and the frailness of the skeleton compared to gorillas is another. Gorillas are quite robust which would include a sagital crest on their skulls.

quote:

For instance, Australopithecus appears to be an ancestor of Homo, but not of chimps.


Which would make it a transition between humans and our common ancestor with chimps, would it not?



hellohellohi -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/4/2008 9:57:38 AM)

quote:

Then we should see a mixture of derived and non-derived features, should we not?


Yes, exactly.

quote:

Which would make [Australopithecus] a transition between humans and our common ancestor with chimps, would it not?


Yeah.

Okay -- what details of dentition? Something to do with premolars? i really forget. The gracile skeleton trait is also interesting.



GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/6/2008 1:22:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

Many creationists claim that there are no transitional fossils. Scientists claim that there are many transitional fossils. To help settle the debate I would like creationists to give us a definition or description of what a transitional fossil is. In order to make this a productive thread I would like to focus on transitionals between humans the their supposed common ancestor with chimps. What features should such a transitional have?

First, your statement implies that no scientists are creationists. Get that right before we go on shall we?



Carico -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/6/2008 2:05:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

Many creationists claim that there are no transitional fossils. Scientists claim that there are many transitional fossils. To help settle the debate I would like creationists to give us a definition or description of what a transitional fossil is. In order to make this a productive thread I would like to focus on transitionals between humans the their supposed common ancestor with chimps. What features should such a transitional have?


First of all, one has to interpret a fossil correctly. Most fossils could be anything from a group of scattered bones embedded into rock to a leaf that looks like bones. And that differs with each individual perception.

Secondly, it must be remembered that fossils come from the sedimentary rock layers all over the world and that sediment comes from water indicating a global flood. But since most scientists are out to disprove the bible, instead of looking at all sides of an issue, they dismiss a global flood and instead explain the sediment by a global ice age which no one in history can validate. [sm=eek.gif] So that's another example of "interpreting" evidence to make be what the interpreter wants it to be. And fossils are no different.



iluvatar -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/6/2008 2:23:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

Secondly, it must be remembered that fossils come from the sedimentary rock layers all over the world and that sediment comes from water indicating a global flood.


If a global flood laid down the various sedimentary deposits around the world, the different sediments would have either been deposited homogenously (i.e. all mixed up) or if they seperated into layers, arranged by density. However, these sediments and the fossils within them are not arranged by density. They are, however, arranged in a manner consistent with the conclusions of radiometric dating - that generally, upper layers are younger and have a higher ratio of parent:daughter isotopes than lower, older layers.

There is also the problem of certain layers in the middle of all those allegedly deposited by a single flood containing fossils of features that could have only occurred at or near the surface - including animal tracks, animal burrows, and wind-blown sand dunes.

Then there is the problem of the sheer amount of biological material needed to create the various fossil deposits we find around the world. Individual deposits can contain many times the amount of material as the entire biomass of earth.

quote:


But since most scientists are out to disprove the bible,


On what do you base that claim?

-Dan.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/7/2008 5:23:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
First of all, one has to interpret a fossil correctly.


Then what features should a real transitional have? Specifically, if humans and chimps share a common ancestor what features should the transitional species between humans and this common ancestor have?



FlashAce -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/7/2008 8:49:13 PM)

A transitional form would be the discovery of a Mermaid Skeleton. Part human, part fish which shows evidence of a transition stage / process.

What evolutionists try to claim is a transitional form:
You have a pony and a racehorse which are two different kinds of horses especially in height relation. That is not a transitional form. That is a species.

Darwin said in the fossil record not animals that are living. He also stated if they are not found his theory is false which it is because transitional fossils do not exist.



Veritas -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/8/2008 7:19:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashAce

Darwin said in the fossil record not animals that are living. He also stated if they are not found his theory is false which it is because transitional fossils do not exist.

That is an out and out lie. He stated no such thing. Provide a reference or retract.



Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/8/2008 3:11:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashAce

A transitional form would be the discovery of a Mermaid Skeleton. Part human, part fish which shows evidence of a transition stage / process.


That would be a transitional, but a transtional that the theory of evolution states that we should never find (and we don't). According to the theory of evolution we should see a part fish, part amphibian and this is exactly what we find with such examples as Tiktaalik rosae, Acanthostega, and Icthyostega.

quote:

What evolutionists try to claim is a transitional form:
You have a pony and a racehorse which are two different kinds of horses especially in height relation. That is not a transitional form. That is a species.


A transitional form would be part of a species, would it not? Ponies and horses are not considered separate species because they interbreed when given a chance, and their offspring are fertile.

quote:

Darwin said in the fossil record not animals that are living.


That's flat out wrong.

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Chapter 6, Origin of Species

The platypus is a transitional species because it has preserved the transitional features between reptiles and placental mammals, as one example.

quote:

He also stated if they are not found his theory is false which it is because transitional fossils do not exist.


Until you give us a working definition you can not claim that they do not exist. Isn't a fish with legs a transitional between fish and amphibians? If so, then there are transitional fossils.



GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/13/2008 1:10:01 PM)

quote:

Isn't a fish with legs a transitional between fish and amphibians? If so, then there are transitional fossils.
No a fish with legs is not a transitional.
Transitionals - that is between major forms, since no one questions the fact of interbreeding or adaptation within the family - only exist if you assume the Darwinian hypothesis to be true from the start.
If you do not make such a baseless assumption then a fish with 'legs' is just another species of fish.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/13/2008 11:55:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
That is an out and out lie.


If he is wrong, he could also be mistaken. If someone is mistaken it doesn't mean they are lying. Please refrain from calling others liars or saying they are telling lies. Please be respectful to others.



Veritas -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 12:11:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
That is an out and out lie.


If he is wrong, he could also be mistaken. If someone is mistaken it doesn't mean they are lying. Please refrain from calling others liars or saying they are telling lies. Please be respectful to others.

I didn't say he was deliberately lying. But what he is saying is simply not true. Darwin never said what FlashAce said.
It gets harder and harder to remain respectful to creationists when they keep repeating lies about Darwin and evolution.

Do creationists even care that they are repeating falsehoods?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 1:04:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
I didn't say he was deliberately lying.


Lying, by definition, is deliberately not telling the truth. Lying, by definition, is deliberate. You know this. Be nice.



gluadys -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 6:51:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

Isn't a fish with legs a transitional between fish and amphibians? If so, then there are transitional fossils.
No a fish with legs is not a transitional.
Transitionals - that is between major forms, since no one questions the fact of interbreeding or adaptation within the family - only exist if you assume the Darwinian hypothesis to be true from the start.
If you do not make such a baseless assumption then a fish with 'legs' is just another species of fish.



Transitionals, by definition, are fossil forms which display traits intermediate between two other forms. Even if a fish with legs is just another species of fish, the legs make it a transitional form.

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.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 10:04:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Transitionals, by definition, are fossil forms which display traits intermediate between two other forms.


No, that's the definition of an intermediate. You're confusing transitional with intermediate. Your parents are a transitional between you and your grandparents. Your parents are one of your ancestors. Hence the word "transition."



gluadys -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 11:51:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Transitionals, by definition, are fossil forms which display traits intermediate between two other forms.


No, that's the definition of an intermediate. You're confusing transitional with intermediate. Your parents are a transitional between you and your grandparents. Your parents are one of your ancestors. Hence the word "transition."



No confusion. In regard to fossils "intermediate" and "transitional" are the same thing since one cannot determine a direct lineage from a fossil.

A particular fossil may or may not be a direct ancestor/descendant of another. It could well be related collaterally rather than directly. Either way, it is evidence that species with the required intermediate characteristics did exist and that is what the theory of evolution predicts.

IOW, finding the skeleton of my uncle is just as good evidence of a transition between myself and my grandparents as finding the skeleton of my mother would be.



GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 8:24:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Transitionals, by definition, are fossil forms which display traits intermediate between two other forms. Even if a fish with legs is just another species of fish, the legs make it a transitional form.
Absolutely wrong. Legs do not a transitional make. The whole transitional argument is based on circular reasoning. Any creature sharing traits between two others, preceding and proceeding, can be called a transitional. But is it really? You have to actually prove it you know. Something that cannot be done as it is impossible to demonstrate in a lab.
And there is not a single purported 'transitional' in existence between 2 different families that actually proves anything more than that staunch Darwinists are very gullible and practice speculation and story telling rather than producing empirical evidence.

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.

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!

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!
Did you ever look at what they presented as the predecessor of the whale? It's just hilariously credulity.

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. The first fish out would have croaked of suffocation. So would all the others that tried to leave the water - unless they developed lungs while still in the water which brings up and equal and opposite problem leading to death.

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!?!
No problem, Dawkins, or some other high priest of the materialist origins myth, comes in and concocts yet another just-so story and all the Darwinists fall under the spell of his charm and sophisms and say, "Our Lord Charles was right!"

Again, the only way one can even propose a transitional is to assume before hand that macro-evo is true.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 9:54:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
No confusion.


Yes, confusion. You clearly confused the two.

quote:


In regard to fossils "intermediate" and "transitional" are the same thing since one cannot determine a direct lineage from a fossil.


Just because we cannot determine the difference does not mean they are the same thing.

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.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 9:55:52 PM)

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?



drj11 -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 9:58:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
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. The first fish out would have croaked of suffocation. So would all the others that tried to leave the water - unless they developed lungs while still in the water which brings up and equal and opposite problem leading to death.

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!?!
No problem, Dawkins, or some other high priest of the materialist origins myth, comes in and concocts yet another just-so story and all the Darwinists fall under the spell of his charm and sophisms and say, "Our Lord Charles was right!"


You have quite the penchant for partaking in the fallacies you accuse others of. In this case, incredulity.

There are plenty of fish alive today that can survive on land. Take this fish for example. Organisms like these give us clues as to the possible pathways organisms might have taken when transitioning from water to land.

As an ID'er why do you take issue with common descent in the first place?



gluadys -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/14/2008 11:07:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
Any creature sharing traits between two others, preceding and proceeding, can be called a transitional. But is it really?


Yes, the shared traits, especially between species that preceed and follow it, mean it fits the definition of a fossil transitional. Transitionals are defined by the shared traits. So nothing else is needed for it to be a transitional.

quote:

Indeed and just how did the first fish that tried to leave the water survive as a water breather?


In the same way most fish do. It derived oxygen from the water as it passed over its gills.

quote:

So would all the others that tried to leave the water - unless they developed lungs while still in the water


Which they did.

quote:

which brings up and equal and opposite problem leading to death.


How so? Never hear of lungfish? Many fossil fish had lungs. Even many that are not thought to be ancestors of terrestrial animals. And, of course, there are also living species of lungfish. They don't seem to be having any special problem with death.

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!?!


Possibly because it was more risky in the water. There were plenty of predators in the water. But on land there were only some spiders and dragonflies and such. Possibly, too, because it discovered some interesting plant food on land.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI