Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
I can line up all the pens on my desk in order from smallest to biggest, but that doesn't prove they evolved from an eraser.

---

They did however evolve from a feather quil....Which is geneticaly speaking bird...Are you saying that geneticaly speaking pens are birds?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Please refrain from characterizing your co-debaters responses as lies. Pointing out the problems in their arguments should be sufficient.

---

Exactly! I think this is the exact reason why there is a lack of creationist on this board. It becomes an enormous waste of time when everything you say is "a lie."

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Even if the fossils are not in question, the interpretation still remains.

​

There is a variety of skulls in human population today and we're all human.

​

I can line up all the pens on my desk in order from smallest to biggest, but that doesn't prove they evolved from an eraser.

---

Your pens are not living creatures Red....i always find this "cars dont evolve" argument to be such a blatant sign of its proponents ignorance. LIFE is the basic requirement for ANYTHING to evolve

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
They did however evolve from a feather quil....

​

Which is geneticaly speaking bird...

​

Are you saying that geneticaly speaking pens are birds?

---

I don't know, I think I'll need a government grant to finish my research.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Your pens are not living creatures Red....i always find this "cars dont evolve" argument to be such a blatant sign of its proponents ignorance. LIFE is the basic requirement for ANYTHING to evolve

---

It doesn't take long to get evolutionist down to resorting to the good old ignorance arguement does it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Exactly! I think this is the exact reason why there is a lack of creationist on this board. It becomes an enormous waste of time when everything you say is "a lie."

​

---

My My...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think that YECs are the LAST people on earth in a position to accuse ANYONE of lying...

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
It doesn't take long to get evolutionist down to resorting to the good old ignorance arguement does it?

​

---

Thats because you make it so damn easy for us to point out the ignorance in your statements. Name me ONE evolutionist that ever advanced the hypothesis that UNLIVING material can EVOLVE.

I am certainly in the company of well educated and well spoken individuals. I find myself, admittedly, a bit over my head reading through some of these threads. I do have a question. If a fish dwelling creature somehow developed a set of lungs over a long period of time; wouldn't he drown at some stage between a lack of gills and the prescence of lungs? If a rat starting growing wings from his front forelimbs; wouldn't he quickly be eaten or starve because of his inability to move with elongated yet useless front limbs/wings? My examples are simplified, I know.Also, changing toes on a horse doesn't appear to imply the horse is transitioning into anything else other than a horse with more or less toes. It is still a horse.

Well, in a sense, pens can "evolve", under the influence of outside input. Use a pen enough, by writing on paper, and it will "evolve" from a being a tube filled with pigmented fluid to being a tube containing little or no fluid. The point may also go so far as to wear out.Subject a pen to a large amount of pressure, and it will "evolve" into a different shape.Subject a pen to a large amount of heat, and the pen will "evolve" (by combustion, volitalization, melting, etc.) into something not at all resembling a pen.But do these analogies have any relevance to organic evolution? I don't think so. Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
My My...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think that YECs are the LAST people on earth in a position to accuse ANYONE of lying...

---

Actually he`s taking issue with us evo`s calling creationists liars, what you posted just makes a further "creationists are liars" attack.A better response would be a reminder that creationists have been known to post claims ranging from the general "evolution is a lie" claim to "evolution is wrong and scientists are part of a conspiracy (that presumeably lies) to hide this fact" and my personal favourite to do with radiometric dating "multiple samples are taken untill they get a "right" result, all other dates are swept under the carpet and the "right" date is published"....These are fairly obviously allegations of lying...Isn`t there a christian teaching along the lines of "let he who is without flaw through the first stone"?

[b] [QUOTE]Why not try to explain the vestigial toes in ALL modern horse embryos, & occasionally, modern horses?[/b][/QUOTE]This website can answer your question.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4117.aspAlso here's some more information on horse "evolution."
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118."There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
My My...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think that YECs are the LAST people on earth in a position to accuse ANYONE of lying...

---

My My...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think that Evolutionist's are the LAST people on earth in a position to accuse ANYONE of lying...

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Thats because you make it so damn easy for us to point out the ignorance in your statements. Name me ONE evolutionist that ever advanced the hypothesis that UNLIVING material can EVOLVE.

---

I guess you missed the point of my analogy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
I guess you missed the point of my analogy.

---

No Red,i havent...the point of your analogy was absurd and i pointed this out to you. Evolution requires living material....at least,compare apples with apples

Once again, we are dealing with out-of-context quotations (rather than misquotations or fabrications, this time). Both of the scientists quoted were discussing the erroneous early idea of orthogenesis, or the direct lineal descent of horses from Eohippus. Here's an explanation:

quote:

---

Orthogenesis was an idea that was popular in the late nineteenth and very early twentieth century but has been rejected by scientists since no one could provide a viable mechanism for it and more importantly the evidence showed it to be wrong. Orthogenesis is the notion that evolution proceeds in straight lines. This can refer to the idea that evolution proceeds straight from species A to species B without any side branches. More importantly, it refers to the idea that an evolutionary lineage changes steady, uniform way with no reversals. Sometimes, but not always, it was imagined that species were evolving steadily towards a goal. Usually this trend was supposed to be caused by some mysterious inner force of the species that compelled it to evolve. Some supporters of orthogenesis would say that once a trend got started in a lineage that it would unchangingly continue until extinction occurred. (From this site

---

That these scientists are referring to orthogenesis, and not horse evolution, is evidenced by Westoll's reference to "early classical evolutionary tree" and Hardin's "There was a time when...". In other words, both scientists were absolutely correct: there is no such thing as straight-line evolution as depicted by orthogenesis. Hardin's further comment on textbooks is also spot on: textbooks often oversimplify or even perpetuate errors. Blame the publishers, not the science.People who rely on websites like AiG for their information are likely to get it wrong, because AiG is notorious for misrepresenting the positions of scientists. Of course, if the website fits your worldview and you have no interest in learning the true nature of the claims, that's another story.