Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 246 (127356)
07-24-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 5:16 PM


I gave you the freakin' link
Is there such a huge problem to follow the link and give a definition of what a transitional is?
Until it is clear what a transitional is any statment saying they don't exist is meaningless. Let's have that definition. Maybe based on your definition they won't exist. Maybe they will.
Since you assert: "...they would exist in great numbers of many kinds" you are clearly an expert on taphonomy. Please show your calculations that support this assertion based on your expertise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:16 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 246 (127360)
07-24-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 5:16 PM


quote:
No horse toes are not relevant when evolutionists are asked for transitional changes between great kinds of creatures.
Did you know that you can feel but not see the two vestigial tarsal bones on either side of the large main bone on a horse's leg?
They articulate with the knee joint and are about 6-8 inches long, and they float a fraction of an inch away from the cannon bone, medially and laterally, connected only with soft tissue.
Quite often, a young horse will come up very lame because he has struck one of the so-called "splint bones" on the inside of one leg with the opposite hoof. It becomes very inflamed and painful.
Traineres will often put protective wraps or boots on the front legs to prevent such injury. In fact, if you look at my avatar picture, you will see that I have put splint boots on Crockett's front legs.
Anyway, eventually, if rested, the horse will heal itself by laying down bone to fuse the splint bone to the cannon bone, but this takes a lot of time and the horse may be quite lame initially. Sometimes, if a horse repeatedly pops splints, he will develop a lot of bone scar that irritates the tendons in the area, making the horse permenantly lame unless the bone is surgically removed.
If Equus Callibus didn't evolve from multi-toed ancestors, why would those splint bones be there?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-24-2004 04:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:16 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 3:22 PM nator has replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 48 of 246 (127373)
07-24-2004 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 5:16 PM


Missing transitionals?
Because there is a problem with the other suff. It is only a sequence of fossils and then an interpretation is made they are related.
whereas with living creatures an actual fossil record showing one major kind evolving into another is nessessary to make thier case
Please explain this again. If I am following the logic correctly you are saying that a long series of smooth transitionals (as exists for many if not most vertebrate groups and the shelled inverts) doesn't qualify as evidence because they are only interpreted as being related? By this then nothing can ever be known about the past if inference can never be used.
The overwhelming point remains that transitional fossils of major kinds of creatures do not exist. If evolution was true they would exist in great numbers of many kinds. Because of the time evolutionists say has past. All that time but no transitions to shout about.
No transitionals except between all major classes and orders of mollusks, corals, brachipods, echinoderms as well as between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and dinosaurs, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, mesonychids and whales, old world monkeys and apes, horses and stem perisodactyls, and even humans and apes. I guess none of those count because the earliest bat found had modern type wings (this is Gish's the oldest known bat is fully formed so therefore no transitionals in any group can be valid).
Also evolutionists themselves have admitted embarrassment at the poverty of transitions
Only in paraphrased, out of context, 150 years old, fraudulent (sometimes all of the above) quotes ripped from the same old YEC sources. These quotes have all be dealt with and shown to be wrong. And as for embarrasment, I am awed by the vast number of transitionals we have for many invert taxa. Enough so that, if I believed in God, I would thank him repeatedly for providing such a clear lineage to his humble biological servant.
And this has forced,I repeat forced, the idea of Puncuated Equiblibrium
Oh boy! This again. Rob, please tell me what you think the theory of punctuated equilibrium is. I am going to go out on a limb and trust you are taking the Morris/Gish/Hovind definition that bears not one bit resemblance to the actual theory. The YEC definition is actually comical as it shows that these people are a)incapable of reading and understanding a scientific paper b)trust that their followers are incapable of reading and understanding a scientific paper so they are free to deliberately lie. As I understand it this is the logic: Eldredge and Gould wrote a paper about PE, Gould wrote a paper about Goldschmidt called "the return of the hopeful monster", therefore PE is the same theory as Goldschmidt's (that a reptile one day hatched out a modern bird). But please please don't trouble yourself to read any of these papers, let Hovind tell you what they are about because he is an honest chap. I am including the ref to the original paper and a link to Hovind's distorted defintion (I am hoping you will carefully compare the two before speaking with authority about how evolutionists "forced" the idea).
Eldredge N and Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative
to phyletic gradualism. In: Models in Paleobiology, edited by T.J.M. Schopf. FreemanCooper, San Francisco, CA, pp.82-115.
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationE...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:16 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 3:54 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 49 of 246 (127374)
07-24-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 5:16 PM


Missing transitionals?
(deleted repeat post)
This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 07-24-2004 06:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:16 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 246 (127410)
07-25-2004 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 5:16 PM


whereas with living creatures an actual fossil record showing one major kind evolving into another is nessessary to make thier case.
Ok, but what would that fossil record look like besides a temporally-organized sequence of discreet but continuous morphologies? In other words, the reason that we're so sure that we have a fossil record of evolutionary change is because the fossils are arranged exactly how we would expect if our hypotheses about genetic ancestry of organisms were correct.
If you want to see fossils evolving, how on earth would that make sense? Fossils are dead, RB. They don't change.
fossils of the past can be made to have any interpretation.
Not when they're found already organized in almost precisely the way we would expect if our proposed genetic lineages were correct. There's only one interpretation of that degree of convergence between stratiography and cladistics - that both straiography and cladistics are describing the same sequence; the evolutionary ancestry of Earth's species.
If evolution was true they would exist in great numbers of many kinds.
They do, though. Almost every species is a transitional form, just like you're the transitional form between the unique morphology of your parents and that of your children.
Also evolutionists themselves have admitted embarrassment at the poverty of transitions.
Well, the only thing they've "admitted" is how poorly people like you understand Punctuated Equilibrium:
quote:
PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.
from Punctuated Equilibria
Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory based on the gaps in the fossil record; it's based on the positive evidence collected from a number of studies in population genetics. That it happens to explain why there are so many transitional fossils between major taxa but so few at the inter-species level is just a side benefit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:16 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 4:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 246 (127411)
07-25-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by NosyNed
07-23-2004 5:41 PM


Still problems with evolution.
I have looked at a number of these links provided and given myself a big head ache.
As far as the horse 'lineage' goes I have a link here that confirms my suspicions:
http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-horses.htm
But, here is the thing ..
There is no better 'alternative theory' to the creation of life, since to be honest, you have to be God to know all the processes that led to the creation of the universe.
However, biological evolution theory makes some sound arguments but does not support with enough evidence.
There are many books on evolution that mislead people into believing that here is a complete lineage from ape to man - rubbish!
In reality the austropoliphiticus IS an ape. and Homo Erectus could very well be a modern human. Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape? Show something approximately midway between the two and we can forget about horses and sea shells and stuff - the case is closed.
Now i know you will argue that austropoliphiticus could walk and was a more 'advanced' ape while erectus was a more primitive man. In that case, why are there no fossils in between those two!!! There is something wrong here - this is a gap of millions of years.
The 'story' could be: Perhaps a population of austropoliphiticus evolved in a relatively small isolated area into erectus or similar type and then this species was so successfull that it spread all over .. (and that's why we find erectus fossils!)..
Nice story but not too convincing for those who believed that God created Man in his own image. Actually , not too convincing for anyone who does not 'believe' in evolution either.
One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong - how could that have evolved?
On analogy to evolution is the evolution of cars: we had old cars, then newer ones modelled after older cars until we get the newest car which is more 'advanced'.
YOu have to admit God could have created lifeforms just as we invented newer cars.
That mollusks thing - I don't know I tend to agree with the Creationists - they are just one 'kind' but i can't argue on this one I don't have the patience to go through this - I hope someone else has the time to do so..
To summarize - I think I understand evolutionary theory and how you can visualize these things..Who knows maybe there is another species that might evolve to be far more intellegent than us..Great science fiction but fossil evidence is another story!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2004 5:41 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by coffee_addict, posted 07-25-2004 4:08 AM SkepticToAll has replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2004 4:10 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 55 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-25-2004 5:52 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 58 by mark24, posted 07-25-2004 7:21 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 59 by RRoman, posted 07-25-2004 8:28 AM SkepticToAll has replied
 Message 61 by RRoman, posted 07-25-2004 9:48 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 62 by nator, posted 07-25-2004 10:24 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 3:14 PM SkepticToAll has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 52 of 246 (127422)
07-25-2004 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


Re: Still problems with evolution.
First of all, I must admit that I have no intention of going to that link of yours.
SkepticToAll writes:
However, biological evolution theory makes some sound arguments but does not support with enough evidence.
Ok... We've beaten this subject to death in the last 3 million threads. But if you say so...
There are many books on evolution that mislead people into believing that here is a complete lineage from ape to man - rubbish!
Actually, your words are as rubbish as it could get. No scientist in his right mind would say that we have a complete record of primate evolution.
In reality the austropoliphiticus IS an ape. and Homo Erectus could very well be a modern human.
First of all, it's australopithecines.
Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape?
Again, nobody is saying that we have a complete record of primate, especially homonid/homonoid, evolution.
If you really have such a clear concept of what a transitional fossil should look like, please go to Ned's transitional thread.
You are continuingly dodging giving any specific criteria in the issue and yet you continue to make assertions such as "there's no transitional fossil blah blah blah...."
Show something approximately midway between the two and we can forget about horses and sea shells and stuff - the case is closed.
Again, tell us what you mean by midway? We have plenty of "midway" fossils, but you keep telling us that we don't have them yet. For once, tell us what you mean by transitional or midway! Go to Ned's thread, please.
Now i know you will argue that austropoliphiticus could walk and was a more 'advanced' ape while erectus was a more primitive man. In that case, why are there no fossils in between those two!!! There is something wrong here - this is a gap of millions of years.
So, now you are contradicting yourself.
The 'story' could be: Perhaps a population of austropoliphiticus evolved in a relatively small isolated area into erectus or similar type and then this species was so successfull that it spread all over .. (and that's why we find erectus fossils!)..
Nice story but not too convincing for those who believed that God created Man in his own image. Actually , not too convincing for anyone who does not 'believe' in evolution either.
Your problem is you don't understand the scientific method. If you adhere to science, you are suppose to follow what the evidence tell you, not your original belief. In other words, we don't have to convince you, as a creationist, of anything. When debating science, you are suppose to throw your preconceived (or is it preconcieved?) beliefs aside and look at the evidence objectively. Once you can do that, then we can talk sensibly.
One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong - how could that have evolved?
What the f*ck are you talking about?
Here is a picture of a whale's tail. Notice that it's horizontal... and even on both sides.
Here is a picture of a shark. Notice that the tail is vertical.
To summarize - I think I understand evolutionary theory and how you can visualize these things..Who knows maybe there is another species that might evolve to be far more intellegent than us..Great science fiction but fossil evidence is another story!
I'm sorry, but you really sound like someone that has a high school knowledge of the theory of evolution and thinks that he knows it all. I'll let you in on a little secret. Most books and websites that are out there to tell you about the theory are grossly simplified versions of the theory itself. They were simplified in order for people like you to understand. Don't ever think that you can learn everything about the theory after reading a 20 page book or a 2 page website on the matter.
It's fun to discuss certain subjects on the boards, but please try to be specific for the discussion to go anywhere. You seem to try to state things in the most general terms. It is not the least impressive and it isn't helpful to our discussion.
The first thing you could do that would make me happy (and I'm sure everyone loves to please me whenever they can ) is to go to Ned's difinition of "transitional" thread and specifically tell us what you want to see as a transitional fossil.

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 246 (127423)
07-25-2004 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong
Well, you would be. The most obvious difference is that shark tails are vertical in orientation, like fish; while cetacean tails are of horizontal orientation.
Cetacean tails are bilaterally symmetrical; shark tails are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by coffee_addict, posted 07-25-2004 4:13 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 54 of 246 (127424)
07-25-2004 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-25-2004 4:10 AM


Ha-ha. I beat you to it

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2004 4:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 55 of 246 (127432)
07-25-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


Snap!
Ha ha. I caught you. We Alaskans are notorious trappers. I baited my trap with mollusks and you took it.
If members of the phylum Mollusca are a kind, then differences greater than exist between humans and a sea squirt must have microevolved in the last 7000 years. From an ignorant point of view it might seem that a clam and a snail are the same. But the fact is that they have entirely different organ systems. They are are far different than humans and fishes (humans and fishes belong to the same subphylum, Craniata, while clams are in the subphylum Diasoma and snails are in the subphylum Cyrtosoma).
I have looked at a number of these links provided and given myself a big head ache.
That pain you feel in your head might be something we like to call truth. If it hurts it is because evidence against dogma always hurts. It sucks to find out you were lied to, I know, I was a YEC myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by coffee_addict, posted 07-25-2004 6:22 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 56 of 246 (127437)
07-25-2004 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Lithodid-Man
07-25-2004 5:52 AM


Re: Snap!
L-M writes:
From an ignorant point of view it might seem that a clam and a snail are the same. But the fact is that they have entirely different organ systems.
Helloooo, honey? We are talking to people that doesn't give a damn about what's behind the outside appearance. They look the same, therefore they must be the same kind.

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-25-2004 5:52 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by wj, posted 07-25-2004 7:16 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 246 (127444)
07-25-2004 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by coffee_addict
07-25-2004 6:22 AM


Re: Snap!
the poster formerly known as Lam writes:
We are talking to people that doesn't give a damn about what's behind the outside appearance. They look the same, therefore they must be the same kind.
We are talking about people whose scientific knowledge is constrained by the level of knowledge of Bronze Age goat herder religious writers. Of course external appearance is all such people rely on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by coffee_addict, posted 07-25-2004 6:22 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:50 AM wj has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 58 of 246 (127445)
07-25-2004 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


Re: Still problems with evolution.
SkepticToAll,
However, biological evolution theory makes some sound arguments but does not support with enough evidence.
I refer you to post 4, & post 14. It's only possible to come up with your comment, above, if you haven't bothered to look at the evidence.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 246 (127452)
07-25-2004 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


From the website:
quote:
First, notice that the charts both begin with Hyracotherium... There are no horses or any other animals shown before Hyracotherium. The reason no previous fossils are shown on the chart is because none has been found. In other words, there is an important gap in the horse fossil record right at the beginning of the chart.
1. We just spent the entire thread explaining to you why it's impossible to have all the fossils until the beginning of life! Fossilization is rare!
2. How could we possibly statisfy this "critique"? If we were to show the author of that webpage the animal that predated Hyracotherium, he would only turn around and say "Aha! Now you don't know what animal came before THAT! You have filled in one gap, but now you have a new one!"
quote:
Hunt does not tell us what it is, scientifically, that connects Hyracotherium and Mesohippus.
1. One transitional would be Orohippus, which "was slightly larger than Hyracotherium, but shared its generally primitive postcranial skeletal structure. For example, as in humans, the lower limb bones of the forelimb (the radius and ulna) of Hyracotherium and Orohippus are distinct and unfused. This is the primitive condition for mammals, and permits rotational movement at the elbow and wrist joints. This condition is retained by animals such as small forest dwellers who must maneuver over uneven terrain. In its postcranial skeleton, Orohippus differs from Hyracotherium by having more enlarged middle digits on its fore and hind feet, and by displaying a complete loss of the first and fifth (thumb and pinkie) toes of the hindlimb."
2. Just as an aside, Mesohippus ("Middle-Horse") earned it's name because it is an "intermediate between the eohippus-like horses of the Eocene, (which don't look much like our familiar "horse") and more "modern" horses." I am reminded of the old joke: A scientist is showing a picture of two organism to an audience. A creationist jumps up and exclaims "But there is a gap between them! Where is the transitional?" The scientist takes out a picture of the transitional fossil and shows it to the creationist. "Aha!" exclaims the creationist "Now you have TWO gaps!"
3. The site I linked to goes on to describe some anatomical features of Mesohippus, including how its feet differ from those of Hyracotherium:
I am also quite sure that one could list alot more if one did just a little research into the literature concerning fossil horses.
4.A. Take a look at the two fossil horses Orohippus and Mesohippus(not to scale):
Now, when I showed you an example of a single celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism, you said: "it did not change into a drastically different species."
I ask you, if unicellular -> multicellular is not drastically different, how can you try to disprove horse evolution by saying that Mesohippus is drastically different from Orohippus?
4.B. Furthermore, you yourself said that "they are all different types of horses". Then you link to a site which tries to disprove horse evolution by saying that there are gaps where the fossils are too different! What, exactly, are you trying to say here?

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-28-2004 8:18 PM RRoman has replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 246 (127458)
07-25-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by wj
07-25-2004 7:16 AM


Re: Snap!
In such a case, the irrationalization of the evidence is impossible to overcome.
With creationists, evolution is like trying to convince someone that there is a connection between a light and the switch relative to evolution...you can flip the switch in front of them all day long and the light goes on and off, but, they can refutiate the connection between the light and the switch all day long since they can't see the wires in the wall...unfortunately, nobody wants to tear out the wall to show them the wires because it's too time consumming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by wj, posted 07-25-2004 7:16 AM wj has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024