Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,402 Year: 20,438/19,786 Month: 835/2,023 Week: 343/392 Day: 33/41 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
Panda
Member (Idle past 2026 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 121 of 314 (597680)
12-23-2010 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Peter
12-23-2010 9:45 AM


Peter writes:

That was kind-of the point ...


Considering that you are replying to a post made almost 2 years ago - and a post made very early on in the discussion - I would suggest that more is required from you than a 6 word snark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Peter, posted 12-23-2010 9:45 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Peter, posted 12-23-2010 10:00 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2237 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 122 of 314 (597681)
12-23-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Panda
12-23-2010 9:57 AM


True.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Panda, posted 12-23-2010 9:57 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 314 (598035)
12-27-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Peter
12-23-2010 9:45 AM


What was kind-of the point!?

My post was interrogative...

Do I have to wait another coupla years for a reply?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Peter, posted 12-23-2010 9:45 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Peter, posted 01-26-2011 6:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2237 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 124 of 314 (602205)
01-26-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2010 10:34 AM


Kind of The Point ....
There was a comment/question (which can be found by tracing back in the message links):

"Do you have an example of an organism that doesn't fit this criteria?

Every species has traits from a pre-existing species and the species after it will have traits from it too so...."

Which somewhat elaborated the point that (I think) I was attempting to make -- i.e. that any species could, in some respect, be considered a transitional one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2010 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2011 11:50 AM Peter has responded
 Message 127 by Robert Byers, posted 02-17-2011 2:59 AM Peter has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 314 (602306)
01-27-2011 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Peter
01-26-2011 6:35 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
You're weird...

Which somewhat elaborated the point that (I think) I was attempting to make -- i.e. that any species could, in some respect, be considered a transitional one.

I guess the most confusing part, then, is why you posted this:

quote:
I think the answer is:

1. Not every organism can be considered an example of a 'Transitional Species'.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Peter, posted 01-26-2011 6:35 PM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Peter, posted 03-02-2011 12:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 127 of 314 (605113)
02-17-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Peter
01-26-2011 6:35 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Peter writes:

There was a comment/question (which can be found by tracing back in the message links):

"Do you have an example of an organism that doesn't fit this criteria?

Every species has traits from a pre-existing species and the species after it will have traits from it too so...."

Which somewhat elaborated the point that (I think) I was attempting to make -- i.e. that any species could, in some respect, be considered a transitional one.

First time (in a long time) poster here.
I think I'm on thread.
As a YEC creationist I would say there is not anatomical remnants or parts showing previous body types whatsoever.
Where there is then it is evidence of a previous body type. like in marine mammals or snakes.
Yet despite the claim of evolution of everything having been something else great numbers of times there is few, repeat few, creatures with anatomical evidence of those previous bodies.
Not even 1%.
This would be impossible if evolution was true.

Further its only a interpretation that present body parts are from previous body parts doing other things. Its not evident they are anything else but what they are for now.
Imagine how it should be if evolution was true.
every creature would have bits and pieces of previous body types galore.

In fact evolution indirectly admits this by using marine mammals, like whales, to demonstrate evolutionary change. They point at vestigial parts and say aha evolution proved.
Yet in fact they prove the opposite.
Marine mammals are special cases of quick adaptation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Peter, posted 01-26-2011 6:35 PM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2011 4:46 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 129 by Huntard, posted 02-17-2011 9:17 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Taq, posted 02-17-2011 12:00 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 184 by Peter, posted 03-02-2011 12:18 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 128 of 314 (605119)
02-17-2011 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Robert Byers
02-17-2011 2:59 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
The bits of that which are comprehensible are wrong.

As most of your blunders are too old and stale to have any interest, could you expand on the nonsense in the last paragraph? It's not clear what mistake you're trying to make, but it's possible that it's a new one and might have some entertainment value.

Thanks.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Robert Byers, posted 02-17-2011 2:59 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 609 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 129 of 314 (605139)
02-17-2011 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Robert Byers
02-17-2011 2:59 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Robert Byers writes:

First time (in a long time) poster here.


Welcome back then.

I think I'm on thread.

Did you mean on topic?

As a YEC creationist I would say there is not anatomical remnants or parts showing previous body types whatsoever.

Ok.

Where there is then it is evidence of a previous body type. like in marine mammals or snakes.

What is it? "[no] anatomical remnants or parts showing previous body types whatsoever" or "Where there [are anatomical remnants or parts] then it is evidence of a previous body type". It would help if you wouldn't contradict yourself.

Yet despite the claim of evolution of everything having been something else great numbers of times there is few, repeat few, creatures with anatomical evidence of those previous bodies.
Not even 1%.

How did you determine this number? Show your work please.

This would be impossible if evolution was true.

Why?

Further its only a interpretation that present body parts are from previous body parts doing other things. Its not evident they are anything else but what they are for now.

They aren't. Of course, they were different in the past.

Imagine how it should be if evolution was true.

I don't have to imagine, I can look outside.

every creature would have bits and pieces of previous body types galore.

No, it wouldn't. You don't know what evolution says, do you?

In fact evolution indirectly admits this by using marine mammals, like whales, to demonstrate evolutionary change. They point at vestigial parts and say aha evolution proved.
Yet in fact they prove the opposite.
Marine mammals are special cases of quick adaptation.

Show that it was indeed "quick". And what you call "adaptation", scientists call evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Robert Byers, posted 02-17-2011 2:59 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 130 of 314 (605170)
02-17-2011 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Robert Byers
02-17-2011 2:59 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
As a YEC creationist I would say there is not anatomical remnants or parts showing previous body types whatsoever.

Really? I would say that shared characteristics transmitted from common ancestry tend to dwarf derived characteristics that evolved in each lineage. Humans, birds, lizards, fish all have backbones just as their common ancestor did. We all share the same basal embryonic developmental patterns. We all still use iron based hemoglobin to transport oxygen and carbon dioxide. The list goes on and on and on.

On top of that, all of these shared and derived characteristics fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. We don't see species, living or dead, that have a mixture of mammalian and avian features, as one example. We don't see fish with vestigial patches of fur. We don't see birds with atavistic mammary glands. We don't see bats with feathers. All of these shared and evolved characteristics fall into the precise pattern predicted by the theory of evolution, and is inexplicable by creationism.

Further its only a interpretation that present body parts are from previous body parts doing other things.

That is the conclusion drawn from the objective morphology of fossils and living species. We conclude that these mixture of traits are due to evolution and common ancestry because the theory predicts the very pattern of shared characteristics that we observe. One does not have to assume shared ancestry in order to conclude that Archaeopteryx has dinosaur features not found in any living bird and avian features not found in any non-avian dinosaur. Those are simply the facts. From those facts we conclude that evolution occurred.

Imagine how it should be if evolution was true.
every creature would have bits and pieces of previous body types galore.

And they do. Can you name a single body part that humans have but chimps do not?

Can you name a single body part that humans have but whales do not? Compare that to the body parts that humans and whales share. One of the few differences I can think of is baleen. Whales and humans share the same mammalian lungs, liver, stomach, vertebrae, ulna, radius, humerus, cranium, brain, etc, etc, etc. Whales even nurse their young just like humans.

In fact evolution indirectly admits this by using marine mammals, like whales, to demonstrate evolutionary change. They point at vestigial parts and say aha evolution proved.

If whales had vestiges of feathers it would disprove evolution. The simple existence of vestiges by themselves does not indicate evolution. It is the fact that the vestiges fall into the predicted nested hierarchy that points to evolution.

Marine mammals are special cases of quick adaptation.

I would disagree with "special cases" but the adaptation was relatively quick if you count 10's of millions of years as quick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Robert Byers, posted 02-17-2011 2:59 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Robert Byers, posted 02-18-2011 12:56 AM Taq has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 131 of 314 (605255)
02-18-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taq
02-17-2011 12:00 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Taq writes:

As a YEC creationist I would say there is not anatomical remnants or parts showing previous body types whatsoever.

Really? I would say that shared characteristics transmitted from common ancestry tend to dwarf derived characteristics that evolved in each lineage. Humans, birds, lizards, fish all have backbones just as their common ancestor did. We all share the same basal embryonic developmental patterns. We all still use iron based hemoglobin to transport oxygen and carbon dioxide. The list goes on and on and on.

On top of that, all of these shared and derived characteristics fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. We don't see species, living or dead, that have a mixture of mammalian and avian features, as one example. We don't see fish with vestigial patches of fur. We don't see birds with atavistic mammary glands. We don't see bats with feathers. All of these shared and evolved characteristics fall into the precise pattern predicted by the theory of evolution, and is inexplicable by creationism.

Further its only a interpretation that present body parts are from previous body parts doing other things.

That is the conclusion drawn from the objective morphology of fossils and living species. We conclude that these mixture of traits are due to evolution and common ancestry because the theory predicts the very pattern of shared characteristics that we observe. One does not have to assume shared ancestry in order to conclude that Archaeopteryx has dinosaur features not found in any living bird and avian features not found in any non-avian dinosaur. Those are simply the facts. From those facts we conclude that evolution occurred.

Imagine how it should be if evolution was true.
every creature would have bits and pieces of previous body types galore.

And they do. Can you name a single body part that humans have but chimps do not?

Can you name a single body part that humans have but whales do not? Compare that to the body parts that humans and whales share. One of the few differences I can think of is baleen. Whales and humans share the same mammalian lungs, liver, stomach, vertebrae, ulna, radius, humerus, cranium, brain, etc, etc, etc. Whales even nurse their young just like humans.

In fact evolution indirectly admits this by using marine mammals, like whales, to demonstrate evolutionary change. They point at vestigial parts and say aha evolution proved.

If whales had vestiges of feathers it would disprove evolution. The simple existence of vestiges by themselves does not indicate evolution. It is the fact that the vestiges fall into the predicted nested hierarchy that points to evolution.

Marine mammals are special cases of quick adaptation.

I would disagree with "special cases" but the adaptation was relatively quick if you count 10's of millions of years as quick.

I think I can address all the replys here.
Your just making the claim that because everyone has a nose then all share a common ancestor with a nose.
Thats interpretation but not evidenced by the nose reality.
It would also be predicted from a common design of a common designer.
I'm talking about actual real anatomical bits and pieces that should be left over from millions of years of endless evolution.
Yet Zilch.
Instead prediction would be if evolution didn't happen they wouldn't be there at all.
Bingo.

Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas.
so indeed they kept remnants of this reality.
Yet again however evolution believers use these marine mammals as case in point that evolution is true.
in fact it makes a damning case against it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Taq, posted 02-17-2011 12:00 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 02-18-2011 1:04 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2011 1:32 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 134 by Huntard, posted 02-18-2011 7:47 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 132 of 314 (605256)
02-18-2011 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Robert Byers
02-18-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Your just making the claim that because everyone has a nose then all share a common ancestor with a nose.

It is more than that. There is also the fact that shared features fall into a nested hierarchy as predicted by the theory of evolution.

It would also be predicted from a common design of a common designer.

A common designer is not limited to a nested hierarchy, therefore there is no reason that one should exist. If mammals and birds have a common designer then what was stopping the designer from designing a species with a combination of mammalian and avian features? There is simply no reason that we should see a nested hierarchy if shared features were due to a common designer.

On the other hand, a nested hierarchy is the only pattern that evolution can produce, at least for species that do no participate in horizontal genetic transfer. Therefore, evolution is the best explanation for the pattern of homology that we observe.

I'm talking about actual real anatomical bits and pieces that should be left over from millions of years of endless evolution.

Why should they still be there? For example, should lions still have gills according to your view of evolution?

Yet again however evolution believers use these marine mammals as case in point that evolution is true.
in fact it makes a damning case against it.

Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Robert Byers, posted 02-18-2011 12:56 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 4:47 AM Taq has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 133 of 314 (605259)
02-18-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Robert Byers
02-18-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Your just making the claim that because everyone has a nose then all share a common ancestor with a nose.

No.

I'm talking about actual real anatomical bits and pieces that should be left over from millions of years of endless evolution.
Yet Zilch.

Actually, there's lots of them. In the real world, you know, the one you didn't make up in your head?

As you yourself are about to admit in the case of whales.

Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas.
so indeed they kept remnants of this reality.
Yet again however evolution believers use these marine mammals as case in point that evolution is true.
in fact it makes a damning case against it.

A case of evolution so undeniable that you yourself admit it ... is damning evidence against evolution?

I have asked you to expand on this. It seems like it could be a whole new kind of creationist crazy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Robert Byers, posted 02-18-2011 12:56 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 5:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 609 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 134 of 314 (605277)
02-18-2011 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Robert Byers
02-18-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Robert Byers writes:

Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas.


Ok.

so indeed they kept remnants of this reality.

Yes, like evolution predicts.

Yet again however evolution believers use these marine mammals as case in point that evolution is true.

Well, yes. Even you admit that this is evience for evolution. See, where you use the word "adapted", biologists use the word "evolved". They're the same thing.

in fact it makes a damning case against it.

What is it? The sentences "Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas" and "in fact it makes a damning case against [evolution]" are contradictory. I asked you to stop contradicting yourself. That would make it easier to understand what you are on about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Robert Byers, posted 02-18-2011 12:56 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 5:23 AM Huntard has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 135 of 314 (605401)
02-19-2011 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Taq
02-18-2011 1:04 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Taq writes:

Your just making the claim that because everyone has a nose then all share a common ancestor with a nose.

It is more than that. There is also the fact that shared features fall into a nested hierarchy as predicted by the theory of evolution.

It would also be predicted from a common design of a common designer.

A common designer is not limited to a nested hierarchy, therefore there is no reason that one should exist. If mammals and birds have a common designer then what was stopping the designer from designing a species with a combination of mammalian and avian features? There is simply no reason that we should see a nested hierarchy if shared features were due to a common designer.

On the other hand, a nested hierarchy is the only pattern that evolution can produce, at least for species that do no participate in horizontal genetic transfer. Therefore, evolution is the best explanation for the pattern of homology that we observe.

I'm talking about actual real anatomical bits and pieces that should be left over from millions of years of endless evolution.

Why should they still be there? For example, should lions still have gills according to your view of evolution?

Yet again however evolution believers use these marine mammals as case in point that evolution is true.
in fact it makes a damning case against it.

Why?

I explained why it makes a great case! There are not pieces showing previous body types. there is with whales and so should with all.

Maybe lions should have evidence of once having gills. They didn't so its not gonna be found. Yet in the millions of years from bugs to buffalos, they say, the creatures should be filled with all kinds of remnants.
They are not save a few special cases.

A designer easily would have a common design. easily giving everyone two eyes, two ears, etc. It makes more sense there is a program for all biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 02-18-2011 1:04 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 11:14 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 136 of 314 (605402)
02-19-2011 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dr Adequate
02-18-2011 1:32 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Dr Adequate writes:

Your just making the claim that because everyone has a nose then all share a common ancestor with a nose.

No.

I'm talking about actual real anatomical bits and pieces that should be left over from millions of years of endless evolution.
Yet Zilch.

Actually, there's lots of them. In the real world, you know, the one you didn't make up in your head?

As you yourself are about to admit in the case of whales.

Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas.
so indeed they kept remnants of this reality.
Yet again however evolution believers use these marine mammals as case in point that evolution is true.
in fact it makes a damning case against it.

A case of evolution so undeniable that you yourself admit it ... is damning evidence against evolution?

I have asked you to expand on this. It seems like it could be a whole new kind of creationist crazy.

Again. The marine mammals show clearly anatomically and otherwise physically/socially great evidence of once having been among the land creatures on land.
So evolutionism uses these few cases to make a greater case of evolution being true and undeniaable.
In fact that was your point.
Yet the few cases prove the poverty of the greater case.
not even 0.01`% of creatures have remnants of past bodies.
if evolution tries to prove evolution by vestigial bits then it proves its not true by the absence of them.
A line of reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2011 1:32 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2011 5:40 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019