Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?

There is no need to go back and reply to my old messages that you missed earlier. The discussion has moved on, you should have replied instead to my more recent Message 50. You're like a recording that can only repeat, "Transitionals don't exist." It doesn't seem to matter how often it is pointed out that transitionals do exist, you just keep repeating it.These are Gould's own words from an essay he wrote in 1981 titled Evolution as Fact and Theory: It is transitionals at the higher taxa levels that you're interested in. Now that I've quoted one of the originators of the theory of punctuated equilibria saying that such transitionals are "abundant", that will hopefully bring an end to your oft repeated and just as often wrong claim that they don't exist, and that punctuated equilibria was proposed to explain why they don't exist. Your errors convey just the opposite impression. It still seems pretty clear that you've misunderstood why PE was proposed. You still think it was proposed to explain the fact that transitionals at higher taxa levels don't exist. But they do exist. PE was actually proposed to explain why finely gradated transitions at the species level are so rare.Your mistaken understanding of PE even contains an obvious contradiction. First you say: Which is largely correct - the steps are normal evolutionary steps produced by selection amongst variation in a population. Then you say: I presume you mean that you were explaining that PE asserts that steps are being skipped. It doesn't. PE does not propose "taxonomical jumps".Here, you once again repeat the claim about absence of transitionals, this time at the genus level: The claim of the absence of genus transitionals is easily rebutted by providing some examples. Here's a paragraph describing some genus transitionals from Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A, Kathleen Hunts article about transitional fossils over at TalkOrigins: I think you're confused about your own position. You keep claiming an absence of transitionals at low, middle and high taxa levels, but the lowest level is just normal trans-species evolution that creationists already concede. The middle level transitions are copiously represented in the fossil record. It is the highest level taxa transitions where you could probably make the strongest case, which is why the Cambrian explosion often comes up in these discussions.In other words, you would be well advised to stop claiming that there are no genus, family or order transitionals in the fossil record, primarily because it is easily rebutted and obviously wrong. But you reached this conclusion while under the misimpression that transitional fossils don't exist. In other words, you reached your conclusions based on bad data. You need to incorporate the fact that transitional fossils at higher taxa levels exist into your thinking. There are few ideas in science that are accepted 100% by the scientific community, including relativity. In fact, there are probably more secular scientists who question relativity than question evolution. So what?If you'd like to discuss horse evolution at the level of detail that you've already begun, then you really should propose a new thread. My only point was that it is a common misconception of creationists that parent species do not survive speciation events. I won't contribute further to pulling the thread off topic. There's no reference for this, it's just the way evolution works to produce more or less of the same structure. Whether you're talking about centipede segments or insect legs or ribs, the number of segments or legs or ribs changes not because a new one evolves from scratch and or an existing way gradually withers away, but because of a simple change in a gene that specifies how many copies to produce. It's a simple principle applied over and over and over again throughout evolutionary history.This is why you should not expect to see transitional forms with partial segments of legs or ribs. It's why the creationist concept of "fully formed" is so far off target. All species are always fully formed. It's why species are not final products but just way stations on the way to another species. You are again declaring that black is white. The creationist movement is almost exclusively evangelical Christian. This is as expected, since the objections stem from evangelical Christian interpretations of Genesis, which of course Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Moslems and so forth do not share. And what philosophical suppositions would those be? The common bond among evangelical Christians is obvious, but what common philosophical bond can you find between American Catholic evolutionists, French Protestant evolutionists, Arabian Moslem evolutionists, Pakistani Hindu evolutionists and Indian Buddhist evolutionists? Your charge is absurd. And off-topic.--Percy

It's real easy how I can interpret it that way -- because it is. It falls in this category of thinking:all{A} is {B} therefore all{B} is {A}This is the logic you just dismissed as a logical fallacy.but all{C} is not {A} and {B} includes {A} and {C}Thus you have {B} = {A} and {B} cannot = {A} at the same time.I'll get to the rest of your "arguments" later. I dont' expect much better results however.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This is only because you refuse to go back to the begining of life on this planet. Pretty much all life is related to you, this is not wild speculation, this is what the evidence shows. Bury your head in the sand if this offends you, but this is what all the evidence points to.

Then evolution falls into that same exact category. Look, ToE barely even has circumstancial evidence at its disposal, let alone a cogent argument in support of itself. If there is no evidence, then no evidence has been proposed. Does that mean that no evidence will ever surface? No, not necessarily. However, if there is so much lacking withing the theory, and yet some of you hold fast to it, then is it unreasonable for me to suppose that it must serve some philosophical facet of your life? Believe me when I say that I don't expect the fossil record to be perfect. I know that most organisms do not survive decay. I'd just like to see something that really made me question it. Neither can we say that it did by that premise. And that's what we've done, and the conclusion tells me that it supports animals belonging to its own 'kind.' Uh, Matrix and I couldn't argue against evolution and claim that it IS complete. Our objection is based on the lack of evidence. As far as the whale sequence is concerned, I have so many objections that I'm not sure where to begin. Perhaps we can start a thread on Ambulocetus and Pakicetus. No openly opposes PE in here. What I see is that they conveniently go back and forth between PE and gradualism. I think I've provided more than enough quotes straight from the horses mouth to clear up any misconceptions. Of course I know what a strawman is and logical fallacies. The last forum I was on used the terminologies quite frequently. It was irritating, not because any of it was true, but because they used it to detract from the actual argument. In the last forum that was a typical tactic. If they had no argument left, they'd simply claim arguments from incredulity, strawmen, logical fallacies, and of course my favorite, ad hominem. Nothing says you don't have an argument more than reverting back to schoolyard name-calling.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

There have been a couple of threads on Whale evolution recently (mostly driven by a now-banned member called randman). In my opinion they never really went anywhere so it might be fun if you can get another one past the admins.See Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet, and A Whale of a Tale and Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils.

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

So we have the fossil and geological data and theories to explain it.
We have the biological studies of organisms, cladistics, DNA.If you think the Theory of Evolution doesn't account for the diversity of life over time, the similiarities of DNA, forms and functions, then what scientific theory do you have that accounts for all this diversity of life over time?Why only bacteria for millions of years? Why only life forms found in the oceans for millions of years and then gradually more life forms appearing on land with increasing complexity, etc.?lfen

if i see another thread on whale evolution, *i* might just grow flippers and swim out to sea.

---

Except that we DO have lots of evidence. Simply saying we don't doesn't make it go away. What sort of evidence would you find convincing? Right, and we don't assume that any particular form will exist, rather the theory predicts that transitional forms will be found linking many taxa. Many such forms have indeed been found, and a few have already been discussed. Not every single step along the way, but fortunately you say you don't expect a perfect fossil record, so that should not be surprising to you. Perhaps you'd like to join one of the many threads that have been started in which we ask for a working definition of "kinds." I agree it is a baffling claim for a creationist to make, but Mr.Matrix has indeed made it in Message 12: "Now the fossil record is almost complete and provides a huge wealth of information about living species emerging all of a sudden with no evolutionary past." You haven't claimed that it is complete, but you have falsely claimed that some evolutionists believe it is (e.g. Message 38). No, you haven't. A person can't "go back and forth" between PE and gradualism, unless your (NJ's) definition of "gradualism" is completely meaningless. PE does not specify that gradual change can never happen, and it certainly does not specify large taxonomic "jumps" with no intermediate steps. Good, then I trust you will make a greater effort to accurately characterize the arguments of your opponents.

You keep claiming there is no evidence, we keep pointing out there is. We have to find a way off this merry-go-round.I'll stick with the thread's topic and only address the evidence for fossil transitionals. Fossil transitional forms exist for the higher taxa, and there are even some fossil series for species/species transitions. Their existence is something you're going to have to deal with. You can't keep saying there is no evidence when there is.If what you actually mean is that you find the evidence unconvincing, then you have to explain why. The gradually changing forms found in the fossil record that lie between taxa fit into the classification scheme for life, and they are largely congruent with the genetic evidence of descent. If you have problems with this evidence then describe those problems to us. A simplistic "There's no evidence" when there obviously is just doesn't suffice.I quoted some text about transitionals from TalkOrigins in my previous message. Here are some photographs of a fossil sequence showing gradual plankton evolution taken from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina: This is evidence, so clearly evidence exists. But you don't agree with the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence. Okay, that's fine. But this time instead of just repeating the quite obviously wrong "There's no evidence," please explain what it is about this evidence that you find unpersuasive. You've pulled the comment out of context. Belfry isn't claiming existence for things that have no evidence. He's replying to your position that seems to be the same as claiming that the actors in a movie weren't really there between frames. This is another topic, but I just want to note that this is nonsense because there is no definition of 'kind'. Even you put it between quotation marks. 'Kind' is from Genesis. I'm just noting this, not trying to introduce a new topic. If you'd like to discuss the definition of 'kind' please open a new thread. So you concede that there is evidence for the whale sequence, you just disagree as to interpretation. That's good, we're making progress. So in other words, you're not really pretending that all the paleontological museums in the world are really empty or just full of fakes. You're not really claiming fossils don't exist. You're just disagreeing with the interpretation of the fossil evidence. Right? So could we please stop claiming there is no evidence so that we can move on to discuss the interpretation of the evidence? No one advocates "constant speedism" today, not here or anywhere else. Phyletic gradualism was never some overarching fundamental concept in biology anyway. You're making the mistake of assuming that when someone talks about an example of evolution at a consistent pace that they're advocating phyletic gradualism. They're not. I hope I can talk about the millions of years of gradual evolution recorded in some seabeds without being accused of being a gradualist. The theory of punctuated equilibria does not require that all evolution be unevenly paced, only that it can be. And it is often the case when talking about evolution that examples of consistent slow paced evolution are much easier to talk about, as long as the subject isn't PE.So please stop these nebulous accusations that there are people here advocating phyletic gradualism. The very next time you think someone is advocating phyletic gradualism you point it out so that we can get to the bottom of why you keep reaching this silly conclusion. You know, I bet it's a pretty safe bet that if you stop saying "There's no evidence" and such that the accusations about strawmen and fallacies will go away. There's plenty of evidence, but it's difficult to discuss when you keep saying it doesn't exist.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix image width.

ALL forms are transitional - including ourselves.

I keep seeing evolutionists showing off different diagrams of sequences made of fossils to show transitions. Remember, this is still your own speculations and interpretations of the fossil record.For example, look at the bat. It is a flying mammal with fur similar to rodents and wings similar to birds. If bats go extinct and a bat fossil is found after million years in the future. Evolutionists will say that there was a rodnet (could be rat, squeril, or termite) or any small animal with fur that million years ago (which is our time) has evolved into a flying creature and then evolved into a bird. And this was the origin of birds. Then they would publish it in their books and consider it a logical evidence. However, we know in our time that rodents are not evolving into bats and bats are not evolving into different birds. But the evolutionists' speculations lead them to such belief. It might sound logical but it is not necessarily true. This type of speculation is applied on all fossils.Similarities can be deceptive and you cannot heavily rely on them and consider them evidence. For the same hypothese that you make about the fossil record, others will make their own hypotheses around the world. How can you even make such a claim in the 21st century? Darwin (with his limited knowledge about cells and his lack of knowledge about genetics) assumed that variations have no limit and that variations would eventually lead to evolution. However, Mendel's genetics have showed that variations are limited and cannot lead to the formation of new species. Modern genetic studies have showed that variations within species is limited to the gene pool of the population and cannot provide "forign" traits from other orgaisms in order for them to evolve. These discoveries have conclusively proved that no matter how many generations pass, a horse (for instance) will keep breading horses and you will not find a newborn horse with wings! You can have as many combinations as you like within a population of organisms but these are limited to the gene pool as I mentioned above. Well, whenever you encounter any example of fossils you will explain it in a hypothesis (pure imagiantion)that sound logical to you because it is based on your speculations. Ok! and you are willing to base all your hypotheses and believes on few fossils with soft tissues that you refer to as "precambrian" and ignore the tons of hard fossils that show rapid and enormous diversities in a short period of time which cannot be explained by an evolutionary process. (unless evolutionists make up a theory that the Cambrian explosion was 1 billion years old, since they seem to be very good at making up such imaginary theories to explain things they cant explain in reality) Which is still an imaginary speculation that you invented when you said that at the Cambrian time there were only hard fossils while you have no way of proving such a claim. Ofcourse they remarkably resemble each other besause they are all skulls of apes. Claiming that such skulls resemble humans is based on speculations. It is like taking a skull of a dinosaur and caliming it to be the skull of a crocodile that could walk on two! Yes of course you can, if you assume that these "laboratory conditions" existed millions of years ago to evolve species by reproduction. Again, you're elaborating further on reproduction and variations and they dont cause evolution into different organisms. Unless you chose to defy genetics and claim that they do!So if you can make any more imaginary speculations regarding the fossil record, make sure to publish them and call them "scientific". Or it would be better to turn them into some japanese animes to be told as bed-time fantasy stories to kids.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Realy? so does that mean that in the future we will evolve into X-men or ninja turtles?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are saying that creationists did not believe in any adaptations within any given specie in the distant past. Am I interpreting that correctly? There never was any contention that certain organims adapt for a variety of reasons, known empirically since Mendel's experiments yielded reproducable and predictable results. The earliest evidence I have of creationists exhibiting this understanding comes from a 1928 paper, written by the equivalent of a creationist back then."Species are immutable. One does not become another or unite with another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.

​

If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are immutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on every species. "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after its kind'." Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great truth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?

​

Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: "But plants not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their endurance is only temporary."

​

Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by development, it does not follow that genera and families and classes are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has been added by development, much less orders, families and genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to plant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility of hybrids by saying, "We do not know." "But why," he says, "in the case of distinct species, the sexual elements should so generally have become more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we do not know." But God knows." -William Williamshttp://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html If that's the case, then why have so many eminent evolutionists stated very clearly that a lack of evidence is very prevelant, and evidence of a genuine macroevolutionary process is scant?"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." - (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." -(Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883)."Why don't we see gradual transition in the sequences of fossils? According to Darwin, and the current neo-Darwinists, the fossil record has gaps in it because of the haphazard way in which fossilization occurs-it is bound to be an imperfect record of the history of life. But is it? Is the jerky and abrupt nature of the record really just due to 'gaps', or does it reflect the way evolution actually happened? There is a strong feeling among leading palaeontologists that the punctuated history shown by fossils reflects the way life has evolved-in leaps and bounds rather than in gradual transition. There is also a growing sense that there is much more to understanding 'macroevolution'-the large-scale picture one gets from the fossils-than the simple idea of natural selection can alone explain."- (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.23).iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip

Ok. you got the one thing. Species are mutableNow, let us give a senerio.You have a species that is mutable.. but seperated for some reason.Each groups of those populations do not interbred with each other, for what ever reason. Each of those groups are mutable.. they change.. gradually.Now, lets go from all those little tiny baby steps, and go and have many many thousands of little baby steps, but each of those two groups going into a different direction. Sooner or later, those two group can not interbreed. At that point.. guess what. They are different species.That is what darwin was saying is the 'origin of species'. The fact that populations will be 'mutable' is evolution.See how simple it is?

Interesting. So we see that creationists were as confused in 1928 as they are now. There failure to understand the theory of evolution was as bad in 1928 as it is now. Their propensity to argue against a strawman existed in 1928, just as it exists today.