evolution and the extinction of dinos

Bluejay writes:Hi, Peter. They are related, but not necessarily as direct descendants.Let's play with a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say we have a handful of fossils from millions and millions of years ago.
And, let's say that these fossils represent three species of animals that belong in the same genus.
And, let's say that we can tell, from their characteristics, that they are related to mammals.
However, they are so similar to one another, that it isn't clear which (if any) of the three species is an actual ancestor of mammals.
Also, we don't have any fossils that can link mammals to any particular one of these three species.
And, we don't have any other fossils of organisms that might be a better fit for the ancestor of mammals.What steps can we take to determine which (if any) of these three species is the actual, lineal ancestor of mammals?I don't think there is much we can do about it, other than to keep looking for other fossils that might shed light on the issue. So, in the absence of good evidence either way, we conclude for each of these three species that they either are the actual, direct ancestors of mammals, or they are sufficiently closely related to the actual, direct ancestors of mammals to be used as approximate surrogates for the ancestors in demonstrating the evolution of the mammal lineage.For the sake of propriety, paleontologists have made it a habit to assume that any transitional fossil is just a surrogate, rather than the actual ancestor, because this is a less extreme claim.So, to answer your question directly, yes, "transitional form" does bear a connotation of direct relationships. However, sometimes scientists are forced to approximate these direct relationships using surrogate species that are closely related to the direct ancestors, and these are also "transitional forms."

jar writes:Read what I wrote. I said "Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be." If you want to play silly word games do so with someone else. I left the kindergarten playground long ago. Next you seem to be playing yet another word game."antecedent/descendent" and "pre-post" are not synonymous. Transitional characteristics are import in understanding the details of evolution. A good example is the mammalian middle ear. Recent discoveries of a small chipmunk (I've always loved the little striped things) like critter that lived around 120 million years ago gave us some exciting information. Now mammals weren't something new 120 million years ago, they had already been around almost that long before. But this little chipmunk size critter had a strange but well preserved middle ear. That's unusual because little bones like those in the middle ear don't often get preserved.Now Mao (I call him Mao even though his real name is Maotherium asiaticus) had a relatively primitive middle ear, partly reptilian, partly mammalian. We know that there were earlier mammals with a more mammalian middle ear. We don't know (and really don't much care) whether Mao was a direct ancestor of any living species.So what did we learn? We learned that the evolution of the mammalian middle ear was not a straight line affair, that there were either several different branches, multiple examples of the trait evolving or the trait evolving and regressing.

Robert Byers writes:Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

frako writes:so um how do creationist explain that no bunny rabbits are found before the boundry, or dogs, cows, human,.....If your "theory" was right then we should find fossils of those animals beneath the boundaryhow do creationists explain the lack of evidence for a young earth and tones of evidence for an old earthhow do creationist explain the lack of evidence for a global flood and tones of evidence to suport the statment that there was no global flood.Al you creos have is your bronze age myths from a book writen by goat herders, and sometimes you distort the facts so much that i dare call you liars.

jar writes:Please explain how a flood can put down a layer high in Iridium.You are free of course, to continue to claim all the false nonsense you want.

Coyote writes: The global flood is placed about 4,350 years ago.The k-t boundary is about 65.5 million years ago.Scientists would be embarrassed to make a mistake of that magnitude.How can you justify supporting such a massive error?

The fauna below the k-t line or as this creationist sees it the flood line is exactly what one should expect to find.

fearandloathing writes:HI RB.
Please explain the amount of Iridium in the KT boundary, as it is one of the rarest elements on earth but is common in asteroids.Then explain shocked Quartz, as it cant be made by anything but a large meteor strike or a nuclear explosion.Then explain the tektites found in the KT boundary.Then you can tell me how the great flood created an impact crater near Chicxulub Mexico on the Yucatan peninsula.Lets not forger the chromium isotope anomaly in the KT.

I explained in another post options for iridium as from sorting of volcanic outpourings during the last stages of the flood or as part of the origin of the upper layer laid after the flood.

Robert Byers writes:I don't know if the iridium is that widespread. in fact it demands a layer over top of rocks created after it was laid. this alone limits how common it is.
Options could be, for those areas with it, of sorting as a last act from the flood year which would include the remains of massive volcanoism.
Another option is that it was part of incoming of the over top layer. I mean volcano action being a great part of the formation or at least stirring about during the rock strata being created in episodes some centuries after the flood.
Iridium is uncommon in normal processes but not big upheaval ones as creationism models would talk about.

its well known creationism doesn't accept these dates. So no error from here.

Robert Byers writes:The fauna below the k-t line or as this creationist sees it the flood line is exactly what one should expect to find.