Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:15 AM
26 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,008 Year: 9,044/19,786 Month: 1,466/2,119 Week: 226/576 Day: 29/98 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
gene90
Member (Idle past 1987 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 16 of 304 (245184)
09-20-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by DrJones*
09-20-2005 1:13 PM


quote:
It wasn't Archaeopteryx, which has been know for quite a long time. It was the purported Archeoraptor that was a fake.

Right. Had I noticed that I would have said something.

Archaeopteryx is a primitive bird from the Jurassic Solnhofen limestone of Germany, and it has been known for many years. There have been accusations of forgery from some, less mainstream circles, as Percy has mentioned, but none have been substantiated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 09-20-2005 1:13 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 304 (245185)
09-20-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
09-20-2005 1:07 PM


quote:
If you insist on this then rational discussion with you won't be possible.

Why not? If you have a problem with my logic, then expose the inconsistencies. However, if not, I would greatly appreciate it if you would not attack me personally simply because I am willing to look at something differently than you.

quote:
Assuming we're not talking about asexual reproduction, all kids are different from their parents. The changes are to a very small degree, but they accumulate through successive generations.

Assuming that we are not talking about different hair or eye color or a difference in size. I'm talking about a completely different type of organism, or a significant transition between two organisms.

quote:
Let's keep this one free of conspiracy theories.

I was not trying to start a conspiracy theory, I was simply stating that National Geographic was duped ONCE, and that it was one of the examples. I was in no way trying to disprove all transitional fossil forms, I was merely bringing up the point that they are not ALL accurate. I'm sorry if that was off-topic. I'll try my very best to stay on-topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 09-20-2005 1:07 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 09-20-2005 2:12 PM Eledhan has not yet responded
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 09-20-2005 8:20 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 18 of 304 (245186)
09-20-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 1:03 PM


I want to know if it has EVER been observed or recorded that a certain organism has EVER changed to something of a completely different kind. Such as a dog becoming a cat, or vice versa, or a transition between the two.

I doubt that this has ever been observed. The theory of evolution does not claim that this will ever occur. What it claims is that an early ancestor of cats was also an early ancestor of dogs. But that early ancestor might not have had any distinctive cat features or characteristics, nor any distinctive dog features or characteristics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:03 PM Eledhan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:22 PM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:24 PM nwr has responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 304 (245187)
09-20-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
09-20-2005 1:18 PM


Oh...

my...

gosh...

I was not talking about the example of dogs to cats, or vice versa!!! I was simply using that as an example!!! I am asking that someone please, for the love of everything good, show me an example of evolution beyond simply a change in which genes are dominant! All I want is a solid example as to how it would happen. Is that asking too much from people who insist that their way is the only way it could work?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 09-20-2005 1:18 PM nwr has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6618
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 20 of 304 (245188)
09-20-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 12:45 PM


quote:
NO FOSSILS COUNT AS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION...PERIOD.

Actually, they do count. Here is the way it works.

Let us consider whales. Teeth are very diagnostic in mammals. You can often tell to which family and genus (sometimes even species) a specimen belongs just by looking at its teeth.

It was noted that the teeth of whales (the ones with teeth) are similar to those of an extinct carnivorous artiodactyl called a mesonychid. So it was hypothesized that whales evolved from a certain branch of artiodactyl.

So here is a prediction that can be made based on the theory of evolution: there used to exist species that were intermediate between these ancient terrestrial artiodactyls and modern whales. Note that there is no other reason to assume a priori that animals intermediate between artiodactyls and whales ever existed. Certainly, there is no reason to suppose that a creator created them. Maybe he did, or maybe he didn't -- there is no reason to assume that these creatures existed.

But if the theory that whales evolved from ancient artiodactyls is correct, then these species definitely did exist. Threfore, if we find the remains of animals that have characteristics in between modern whales and these particular ancient artiodactyls, then this is confirmation for the theory that whales evolved from these creatures.

And what do you know? Such fossils have been found!

Now take bats. There are no fossils yet known of ancient bat precursors. We believe that bats evolved from a certain type of ancient arboreal mammal. Therefore, if this theory is correct, there must have been creatures that were intermediate between these ancient tree-dwelling mammals and modern bats. These animals might not have existed -- certainly the creator had no special reason to create them, he might have or he might have not -- but if the theory that bats evolved from this particular branch of tree-dwelling mammals is correct these in between species had to exist. So, if fossils of bat precursors are found that have characteristics in between modern bats and ancient arboreal mammals, evolution will have again be confirmed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 12:45 PM Eledhan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:30 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 51 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 2:00 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 304 (245190)
09-20-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
09-20-2005 1:18 PM


quote:
I doubt that this has ever been observed. The theory of evolution does not claim that this will ever occur.

Huh? Are you telling me that evolution doesn't require that one species become another one in order to get all the different species that we observe today? I don't get it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 09-20-2005 1:18 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by DrJones*, posted 09-20-2005 1:28 PM Eledhan has responded
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 09-20-2005 1:33 PM Eledhan has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1866
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 22 of 304 (245192)
09-20-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 1:24 PM


Are you telling me that evolution doesn't require that one species become another one in order to get all the different species that we observe today?

One species begatting another yes.

I'm talking about a completely different type of organism, or a significant transition between two organisms.

A cat giving birth to a dog, bird hatching a mammal, organism A giving birth to completely different organism B no.


If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:24 PM Eledhan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:32 PM DrJones* has responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 304 (245193)
09-20-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
09-20-2005 1:23 PM


Okay, here's the only problem with your version of fossil usage...

You are determining the age of the fossils based on the age of the layer they are found in.

The only problem I have with this is that you can't have a tree, standing up, fossilized through more than one layer! And yet this is seen in various different places in the world. So, you assumption that one fossil is older than the other cannot necessarily be proven. Now I know you probably have a good answer to that, but that belongs in a different thread. My only point is, you have no way of determining just how old these fossils are, therefore, you cannot tell me that one came before the other. Obviously there are openings for too many debates to begin here, so I won't get into them.

I will concede your point that fossils can be used PARTIALLY for evidence, but they are not the most important part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 09-20-2005 1:23 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 1:36 PM Eledhan has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 09-20-2005 1:58 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 304 (245195)
09-20-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by DrJones*
09-20-2005 1:28 PM


quote:
One species begatting another yes.

So, you think that a horse could give birth to a zebra, even if it does not mate with a zebra?

This message has been edited by Eledhan, 09-20-2005 01:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by DrJones*, posted 09-20-2005 1:28 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by DrJones*, posted 09-20-2005 1:35 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 25 of 304 (245196)
09-20-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 1:24 PM


Are you telling me that evolution doesn't require that one species become another one in order to get all the different species that we observe today?

No, that is not what I am saying.

Did you actually read my earlier post, and read it all the way to the end?

I'll repeat, with a little more detail.

The theory claims that there was an early species which was a predecessor of cats. This early species probably had no cat-like distinguishing features. That early species evolved into different species. Some of the successor species acquired cat features through a number of evolutionary steps. Other successor species acquired dog features.

As you can see, I am talking about a species evolving into one or more successor species. But there is no requirement that a cat evolve into a dog.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:24 PM Eledhan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:37 PM nwr has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1866
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 26 of 304 (245197)
09-20-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 1:32 PM


So, you think that a horse could give birth to a zebra, even if it does not mate with a zebra?

nope. A horse giving bith to something slightly less horse and slightly more zebra, this continues one until eventually a descendant of the original horse species is what we recognize as the zebra species.

nwr's post above explains it better than I can.

This message has been edited by DrJones*, 09-20-2005 11:36 AM


If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:32 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1987 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 27 of 304 (245198)
09-20-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 1:30 PM


quote:
You are determining the age of the fossils based on the age of the layer they are found in.

The only problem I have with this is that you can't have a tree, standing up, fossilized through more than one layer! And yet this is seen in various different places in the world.


This is a geology-related question that I would answer but would be off-topic. It's already been covered you might check:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=116&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=116&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=116&m=1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:30 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 304 (245199)
09-20-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 12:45 PM


It is impossible for ANY fossil to count for evidence of evolution. Why? Because scientists, historians, or anybody for that matter, cannot prove that those fossils had ANY kids, let alone kids who were different than their parents.

Straight from the Book of Hovind right? I'm sure, word for word, I've heard him say this on at least three seperate occasions.

What we can say is "there is good reason to believe that given the rarity of fossilization there was once a population of entities that resembled this one", further investigation would reveal what the chances of that entity being the last of its kind, or whether the population had significant allele frequency change as time went on.

I saw a Uniformitarianism thread earlier and I would just like to bring up that if we don't see these transitions now, even to a very small degree, then why should we expect there to have beeen transitions in the past?

Each organism is a transition between its parent and its child. We also see speciation which is the reproductive isolation of two populations of organisms, the first stage of major divergence.

If evolution is true, geologists and biologists should expect to find all kinds of transitional forms, and not just for a few changes, but for every change.

There is direct evidence which demonstrates conclusively that not all organisms fossilize when they die. Thus your statement is false. There is evidence that the fossil record can skip as much as 70 million years.

And I also cannot believe that the link posted showing the reptile-to-bird transitions actually included Archaeopterix (sp?). That was proven false years ago!!! Some Chinese farmer dug up a fossil and glued a piece onto it and sold it to National Geographic for thousands of dollars!!!

You are thinking of archaeoraptor, the organism archaeopteryx is a genuine fossil.

How do we know that if Archaeopterix is the only one that people have lied to the public about?

We can never know (indeed other forgeries have been made) however, these forgeries are uncovered with the merest hint of testing...they only fool people before they undergo the rigorous examination of skeptical scientists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 12:45 PM Eledhan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:42 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-20-2005 2:40 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 304 (245200)
09-20-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nwr
09-20-2005 1:33 PM


quote:
Did you actually read my earlier post, and read it all the way to the end?

Yes, I did. Did you? Apparently not, because, as I stated earlier, you would have realized that I was not trying to use an exact example from evolutionary theory, I was simply throwing out CATS & DOGS! I don't really care that cats didn't come from dogs, or vice versa. My point is, I want to see a good example as to how we have observed a similar jump to a transitional form. Obviously we could not have observed a jump all the way from cats to dogs, but that's still just a HYPOTHETICAL example.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 09-20-2005 1:33 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 09-20-2005 2:32 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 304 (245201)
09-20-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Modulous
09-20-2005 1:36 PM


Good response. Although it still fails to answer my biggest question... have we ever observed these changes?

And I am sick and tired of people using the changes of hair, eye, and skin color (along with others). Any geneticist knows that these are not additions to the gene code, but simply different genes playing more dominant roles. I want to hear of an example for the theory of Evolution that has been observed.

Essentially I am asking for the impossible, and I know that. That's my whole point. We could not observe the entire process, so therefore we are left to guessing. Which is fine, until someone tries to guess that God started it all, and then all of a sudden, it's not okay anymore. That's where I can't understand the logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2005 1:36 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 09-20-2005 1:47 PM Eledhan has not yet responded
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 1:47 PM Eledhan has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2005 2:57 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

Prev1
2
3456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019