Another Chance For Creationists To Recite Falsehoods About Intermediate Forms

it just shows that these are proclaimed as being a transitional before they have been 'proved' to be transitional shouldnt they hold back until they have conclusive evidence? And isnt science supposed to get that evidence before it draws any conclusions and makes any claims?

That's exactly what they did. Evolutionists studied Archeoraptor and found it to be composite almost the moment they got their hands on it. For some reason, you trustingly accept their word for it.

Meanwhile, you jumped in and falsely identified the fossil that Briterican's list was actually talking about as being Archeoraptor without spending fifteen seconds to look at the evidence and find out that it was no such thing.

It isn't any of the evos round here who was making false, baseless claims about Archeoraptor. It was ... you.

I notice that you haven't acknowledged your error. But then, when evolutionists are absolutely right and you believe everything they say, they're still evolutionists, whereas when you're absolutely wrong, you're still a creationist, so I guess in the magical kingdom of your mind you're still superior to them.

tuffers writes: What would be your take on the intermediate fossils showing the evolution of whales, as clearly and succinctly demonstrated on this link?

doesnt it usually work the other way around...the sea creatures came onto land and not the land creatures went into the water?

If Whales provide the best example of transitional fossils, then im not convinced. Dawkins says the oldest fossil is 48.5million years old...and how many transitionals does he have? all of 3. Why isnt there a longer line of changes. The transitional fossil directly before the modern whale has arms and legs!

Why cant these simply be varieties of whale...or some other type of marine animal?

hooah212002 writes: b: The rumor circulated throughout the paleontological community that it was a transitional.

National Geographic called it “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.”

they are only reporting on what they are being told i assume...so who told them that it was a true missing link? I dont know who told them but when i read a science journal i'd like to think its full of truthful and accurate information.

Now either, national geographic printed the article themselves and did not bother to consult anyone about the details of the find

Or

someone contacted National Geographic and gave them the details of the find which is what N.G printed.

DrAdequate writes: Meanwhile, you jumped in and falsely identified the fossil that Briterican's list was actually talking about as being Archeoraptor without spending fifteen seconds to look at the evidence and find out that it was no such thing.

i said 'if its the same fossil'

it was only called a 'chinese fossil' in his list which is why i said 'if its the same fossil'

get a grip!

National Geographic called it “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” they are only reporting on what they are being told i assume...so who told them that it was a true missing link? I dont know who told them but when i read a science journal i'd like to think its full of truthful and accurate information.

National Geographic is not a science journal.

And even if it were, while science journals publish to a much higher standard of accuracy and truthfulness than other publications they are inevitably imperfect.

someone contacted National Geographic and gave them the details of the find which is what N.G printed.

Who knows. Have you read the article? It might say.

National Geographic called it “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” they are only reporting on what they are being told i assume...so who told them that it was a true missing link? I dont know who told them but when i read a science journal i'd like to think its full of truthful and accurate information.

National Geographic is not a science journal. It's a magazine. Next you'll be yelling at scientists because the cartoons in Mad are inaccurate.

Peg, this is junior-high level academic stuff. You should know this. I know you've been told before, and yet you come out with the same old canards. Honest scientists and students, Peg, don't twist the facts to suit their immediate argument.

Would you now care to tell us all about National Geographic's retraction of the archeoraptor article? No scientist ever accepted archeoraptor...no fraud, just another demonstration of how creationists will lie the truth out of the universe in order to force feed their agenda.

Edited by Tanndarr, : so I can look like I know how to spell

Here, from the Wiki article I already pointed out, since you didn't read it:

The Czerkases contacted paleontologist Phil Currie, who contacted the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The National Geographic Society intended to get the fossil formally published in the peer-reviewed science journal Nature, and then follow up immediately with a press conference and an issue of National Geographic.[6] Editor Bill Allen asked that all members of the project keep the fossil secret, so that the magazine would have a scoop on the story.

My guess? Mr. Currie told NatGeo what the scientific community had heard rumors about, then NatGeo flipped it around for coverage. You can't exactly contact them and just say "hey, we have another fossil" and they will be intrigued. No, he would have had to say "I think we MAY have an important fossil, but it has yet to be studied".

IF that is the case, shame on NatGeo.

Here, further down, we have this:

Currie in the first week of September sent his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, to the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding to prepare the fossil for better study. Aulenback concluded that the fossil was "a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens...with a maximum...of five...separate specimens", but the Czerkases angrily denied this and Aulenbeck only reported this to Currie. Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.[7]

So the guy who just dumped 80k in this fossil, can't accept it is fake, and Currie doesn't report to NatGeo, and why should he?

Furthermore:

On August 20 Nature rejected the paper, indicating to the Czerkases that National Geographic had refused to delay publication, leaving too little time for peer review. The authors then submitted the paper to Science, which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed Science that "the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased" and that the fossil had been "doctored" in China "to enhance its value." Science then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, the Czerkases did not inform National Geographic about the details of the two rejections.[6] By that time the November issue of National Geographic was already in preparation for printing, but "Archaeoraptor" was never formally published in any peer-reviewed journal.

It was REJECTED by both Nature and Science, was never accepted by the peer review board, and NatGeo went ahead and published anyways since they had not been informed that it was rejected. NatGeo should have checked up on it.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

i said 'if its the same fossil' it was only called a 'chinese fossil' in his list which is why i said 'if its the same fossil'

So, baseless speculation not only without evidence, but contrary to evidence you could have found with fifteen seconds research.

get a grip!

On what? If that would involve letting go of reality, I'm afraid I have my hands full.

---

Now, wasn't this thread set up for you people to deny the findings of scientists. So far, you seem to have concentrated on affirming that they were absolutely right ... and criticizing them for it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

doesnt it usually work the other way around...the sea creatures came onto land and not the land creatures went into the water?

No, of course not.

Of course, if you believe creationist halfwits, neither event has ever happened, so of course you have to rely on evolutionists for any facts about this as for all your other facts in biology.

If Whales provide the best example of transitional fossils, then im not convinced. Dawkins says the oldest fossil is 48.5million years old...and how many transitionals does he have? all of 3. Why isnt there a longer line of changes.

First, more forms are known. Second, it was only in about the year 2000 that we found out where whales evolved, how many would you expect to be found by now?

The transitional fossil directly before the modern whale has arms and legs!

You call those "legs"? You think it could walk on them?

Why cant these simply be varieties of whale...

If you're going to admit that Pakicetus was related to whales I don't really see what more you have left to concede.

... or some other type of marine animal?

Anatomy. This is what makes them intermediate forms.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If [insert anything here] then im not convinced.

There, fixed it for you.

Because of your a priori beliefs no amount of evidence will convince you of anything to the contrary. At least be honest and admit that.

And stop pretending to be interested in science; when creationists accept only their own beliefs as evidence, their only interest in science is undermining it. If you had any real interest in science you would learn something about it, but with virtually every post you make you demonstrate that you are unwilling to learn the simplest scientific details.

Edited by Coyote, : posting with insufficient caffeine levels (spelling)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why cant these simply be varieties of whale...or some other type of marine animal?

You seem to have a thing about common names. A transitional fossil is in actuality, any fossil since it is transitional between it's parents & its offspring. Bringing this out over a long period the changes do to mutations, & the natural selection of such alter the organisms. The fact that, as you say "all of three," there only needs to be 1 to show the relationship. As for what they are, that is the the point. They are transitional and could theoretically be classified as either the previous or post grouping depending on how much difference there is. As for returning to the sea, whales weren't the first. It has occurred several other times, turtles, snakes, pleisosaurs & ichthiosaurs.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Bluecat & Dr Adequate have already answered your questions very well.

However, I would add that when you say, "Why cant these simply be varieties of whale...?" - they are! Evolution of species is the change from one variety to another - over time. That is exactly what these examples demonstrate. The great thing about fossils is that they can be dated (by a number of different methods), and you don't find any evidence of whales existing before the first land animals appeared, nor for the next few hundred million years. That is the same with the whole fossil record - it is absolutely consistent in demonstrating changes from one variety to another over time.

The whale fossils are a great example of intermediates because they show how the nostrils/blow-hole moved back from the end of the snout to the top of the head over time. This is exactly what evolutionary theory would expect (or even require) to have happened, and the fossils have now been found. The dating of the fossils fully supports the theory.

While there may only be 3 intermediate specimens in this example, I'm sure there are many more. In any case, as has been stated many times, it is incredibly fortunate that there are as many fossils as there are. It is just not realistic to expect a perfect generation-by-generation chain of fossils. We will undoubtedly continue to find many more fossils that will show a longer line of changes but we'll never have an example from every generation.

Hi, Hooah.

hooah212002 writes: A question I have often thought about, especially since seeing Kirk and his "crocoduck", is: what would a creationist allow as a transitional? So far it seems as though only some crazy monster that infuses 2 animals is going to be sufficient.

It doesn't matter: the entomological community already knows about crazy monsters on par with Kirk Cameron's "crocoducks." Here's my favorite (it's not a fossil intermediate form, but I've been wanting to post this for some time now, and this is as good an excuse as I think I'm going to get):

Little Yucatan mantis, Mantoida maya

And, for reference, another mantis and a cockroach:

Chinese mantis, Tenodera aridifolia
American cockroach, Periplaneta americana

Due to image rights, I won't post the images here. They all come from BugGuide.net, which is a good resource for pictures of insects, spiders and other arthropods.

Particularly, compare the cockroach, side by side, with the Little Yucatan mantis. Then, compare the Little Yucatan mantis's head and forelimbs to the Chinese mantis's head and forelimbs.

You might could call this a "cockroach with a mantis's head and forelimbs," or a "mantis in a cockroach's body."

Bluejay's guide to interpreting the mantis and cockroach affinities of the Little Yucatan mantis* writes: Most mantids have the prothorax (the body segment behind the head, to which the first pair of legs is attached) elongated, along with the fore-coxae (the first segment of the first pair of legs), both of which adaptations help them snatch prey. However, Mantoida does not have either of these adaptations: as a cursorial animal (much like a cockroach), it needs all six legs for running. Thus, it maintains its cockroach-like body and legs, but developed a hook on the end of the foretibia (i.e., at the "wrist" of the forelimbs), which eventually became the famous raptorial forelimbs in the more traditional mantids. Note also that Mantoida runs on the tarsus of its forelimbs (that's the last segment of the forelimb, usually divided into five sub-segments in most insects). The more derived mantids have the foretarsus reduced (cf. Tenodera photo above), and don't really use it for running. Finally, as a side note, molecular studies by Svenson and Whiting (from BYU, where I did my undergrad) place Mantoida at the base of the Mantodea (mantises), nearest the cockroaches (with the exception of one mantis genus, Chaeteessa, which is similar to Mantoida in all the characteristics I listed in this post). *Not an actual publication

-----

Conclusion: The evidence meets even the most outlandish and inane of creationist demands, including the "crocoduck" criterion!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

...just another demonstration of how creationists will lie the truth out of the universe in order to force feed their agenda.

Tanndarr, isn't this ^^ pretty much an Ad hom attack?

Also, does this mean that the next time you make a sub-PhD comment that Peg, in turn, gets to respond with: "Honest scientists and students, Tanndarr, don't twist the facts to suit their immediate argument."? How do you qualify the academia of your own comments?

I see a lot of opinion and hasty generalizing in your response.

But but, it's still a bug kind! No evolution there.