Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 6:09 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,128 Year: 5,165/19,786 Month: 1,287/873 Week: 183/460 Day: 28/97 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1786
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 8.2


(1)
Message 1 of 400 (850248)
04-04-2019 8:34 PM


Scientists have unearthed fossils in a coastal desert of southern Peru of a four-legged whale that thrived both in the sea and on land about 43 million years ago in a discovery that illuminates a pivotal stage in early cetacean evolution.

Personally, I understand that they are all transitional but surely this one is undeniable.

Links and info I guess.

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2019 5:44 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 230 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:07 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 400 (850250)
04-05-2019 12:10 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What would a transitional fossle look like? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 3 of 400 (850267)
04-05-2019 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ProtoTypical
04-04-2019 8:34 PM


but surely this one is undeniable.

Not to a creationist. We can expect this one to be the focus of extra special double denial. And don't call me Shirley.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-04-2019 8:34 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-05-2019 7:29 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1786
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 4 of 400 (850269)
04-05-2019 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by AZPaul3
04-05-2019 5:44 AM


I suppose that it did appear suspiciously all of a sudden out of the rocks there when they uncovered it.

Here is a more thorough description


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2019 5:44 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Diomedes, posted 04-05-2019 9:58 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2019 1:42 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 835
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 5 of 400 (850280)
04-05-2019 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ProtoTypical
04-05-2019 7:29 AM


Interestingly, the fossil record for whales is actually one of the better ones when it comes to transitional fossils. I remember watching an episode of the show 'Paleoworld' back in the 90s and they showcased many of the specimens they had regarding how whales evolved from terrestrial animals known as Mesonychids. Was very fascinating.

Still, when it comes to proof for evolution versus intelligent design aka creationism, this evidence won't matter. They will just move the goal posts again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-05-2019 7:29 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by caffeine, posted 04-05-2019 1:25 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 6 of 400 (850293)
04-05-2019 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Diomedes
04-05-2019 9:58 AM


Interestingly, the fossil record for whales is actually one of the better ones when it comes to transitional fossils. I remember watching an episode of the show 'Paleoworld' back in the 90s and they showcased many of the specimens they had regarding how whales evolved from terrestrial animals known as Mesonychids. Was very fascinating.

I think that's a bit out of date though. Now that many more early whale fossils have been discovered, and now we have a better understanding of mammal interrelationships in general, it's no longer clear that mesonychids are closely related to whales. They might be, but it's a matter of some dispute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Diomedes, posted 04-05-2019 9:58 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


(6)
Message 7 of 400 (850298)
04-05-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ProtoTypical
04-05-2019 7:29 AM


It was evolving by micro-evolution from the cow- to the fish-kind.

quote:

vertebral and limb bone epiphyses are firmly attached to centra and diaphyses

The anterior margin of the large mandibular foramen is sub-rectilinear, directed anteroventrally, and reaching a level intermediate between the top of the coronoid process and m3. The outline of the anterior part of the mandible in lateral view indicates the absence of clinorhinchy (sensu [15]).

Distal to the trochlear notch, a rough surface on the medial surface of each ulna corresponds to an attachment area for biceps brachii and/or brachialis. The distal epiphysis of the ulna is truncated and bears a flat articulation with the cuneiform.


These are devil words.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-05-2019 7:29 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-05-2019 8:05 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 231 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:44 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 400 (850302)
04-05-2019 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AZPaul3
04-05-2019 1:42 PM


It was evolving by micro-evolution from the cow- to the fish-kind.

Obviously you understand nothing. You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh. Microevolution is just another word for the variation that occurs in a given genome over the generations. The cow genome does not have any genetic stuff for making fish, it is all variation on the cow kind and nothing else. The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color. You guys really understand absolutely nothing about the processes required. You cannot get variation beyond the genome. Not only is it limited to the genetic makeup for the particular creature that possesses it, but as the variations occur in any particular direction they eventually run into the situation of fixed loci or homozygosity for the trait, beyond which further evolution is not possible on that line of variation. I'm rignt about this. Macroevolution or the ToE is simply impossible by the nature of genetics.

Fossils are simply not a record of evolution, they are just dead creatures of their own particular kind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2019 1:42 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2019 11:03 PM Faith has responded
 Message 10 by edge, posted 04-05-2019 11:11 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2019 2:16 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2019 7:30 AM Faith has responded
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 04-06-2019 12:09 PM Faith has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


(5)
Message 9 of 400 (850304)
04-05-2019 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-05-2019 8:05 PM


Obviously you understand nothing. You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh.

Jeeez! You literalists are no fun at all! AZPaul3 was being sarcastic in an obvious parody of you stupid literalists! Jeeeez!

BTW, cetaceans are not fish nor fishy. Besides many other obvious problems, cetacean flukes are very different from fishy fins. Fish swim side to side, whereas cetaceans swim up and down -- we even learned that up-down stroke in skin diving and SCUBA class.

Of course, on this very forum right here we still have you yourself personally demonstrating via the felid "basic created kind" that microevolution leads directly to macroevolution. Of course in typical creationist fashion, you immediately started back-pedaling and denying everything you had just revealed, but that does not change the facts.

Just for review, the "felid basic created kind" includes both genera of Felidae which are Panthera (lions, tigers, and leopards, oh my!) and Felinae (all kinds of kitties and more). All kinds of hybrids are possible within Felinae and all kinds of hybrids are possible are possible within Panthera, but not hybrids between the two genara Felinae and Panthera (well, that is one that happened, which was very unexpected, but that does not negate the fundamental reproductive barrier between felid genera).

According to Faith and standard creationism, both genera Felinae and Panthera are of the same basic created kind. And yet they have essentially become reproductively isolated, the very definition of macroevolution. And they do not even begin to approach the same problems presented by YEC's "basic worm kinds" and "basic moth kinds", etc.

So then, yes, Faith herself did indeed prove on this very forum that microevolution does indeed lead directly to macroevolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-05-2019 8:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 2:05 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


(2)
Message 10 of 400 (850305)
04-05-2019 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-05-2019 8:05 PM


Obviously you understand nothing. You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh. Microevolution is just another word for the variation that occurs in a given genome over the generations. The cow genome does not have any genetic stuff for making fish, it is all variation on the cow kind and nothing else. The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color. You guys really understand absolutely nothing about the processes required. You cannot get variation beyond the genome. Not only is it limited to the genetic makeup for the particular creature that possesses it, but as the variations occur in any particular direction they eventually run into the situation of fixed loci or homozygosity for the trait, beyond which further evolution is not possible on that line of variation. I'm rignt about this. Macroevolution or the ToE is simply impossible by the nature of genetics.

Fossils are simply not a record of evolution, they are just dead creatures of their own particular kind.


Your post makes me wish that I could give AZPaul another cheer. He has accurately caricaturized the YEC position on this subject and you have completely fallen for it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-05-2019 8:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 11 of 400 (850307)
04-06-2019 12:30 AM


We are all isolated and stuck in our time.
Many "macro-evolutionary" events are difficult to grasp.

These things can only happen over a span of multiple-horizons.

Creationists have their views because these things are not so simple as their critics like to present them.

I ask that there be less sarcastic commentary.


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:39 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 04-06-2019 12:02 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 04-08-2019 10:03 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 12 of 400 (850309)
04-06-2019 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by LamarkNewAge
04-06-2019 12:30 AM


Re: We are all isolated and stuck in our time.
I could grant you the first two points, though with reservations since that second one had weird terminology attached.

But the actual problem with creationists is that they require things that are plainly and simply not true and so should not be considered.

If somebody wants to present pure and utter BS, then you should point that out. And your point is???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-06-2019 12:30 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 400 (850311)
04-06-2019 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by dwise1
04-05-2019 11:03 PM


Of course he was being sarcastic, but to be sarcastic about microevolution in the way he was shows he doesn't have a clue. And neither do you. None of you will ever see what is really going on because you are glued into your ToE expectations. They are impossible because you have no grasp of the processes involved to bring it about, none. You cannot get from the built in variation of the genome of any given species or kind to any other species or kind. Within the genome all the genetic stuff of the species or kind is present. To get something entirely different, that is a characteristic of a wholly different species, requires changes to the genome that would take so many trials and errors it is as good as impossible. It's like the route I imagined some time back from the fossil reptile ear to the fossil mammal ear. The genetic stuff is not present for the mammal ear, the layout is entirely different. To get to the mammal ear requires mutations of such a complex sort it can't happen. Millions of mutations that produce useless deformities would have to happen before you got anything like one part of the mammal ear. Same with any of your putative changes from one species to another. The genome already has all the stuff of one species, you don't get the stuff for a new species out of that.

Consider the species or kind called dog. ALL dogs have the same basic physical structure or skeletal form or shape. All of them, even where there are some distortions to it due to insane breeding practices. You will never get a structural change that makes that basic skeletal form into anything else. It's there in the dog genome.

Of course you will go on with the verbal abuse and the certainty that you are right nevertheless. No I never demonstrated macroevolution. What you are talking about is my description of how you get to "speciation" and YOU call that macroevolution. That's a ridiculous claim since the genetic condition of the "new species" is depleted to the point that further evolution is impossible, and that depleted condition is in most cases most likely the reason why breeding with the parent population is no longer possible. To call it macroevolution is simply to indulge in the usual self deception of evos. It's all a definitional game.

ABE: I don't remember the cat examples, but there is no doubt in my mind that Panthera and Felidae are the same kind since they have the same body structure. Loss of ability to breed with each other, as a I say above, most likely has to do with varying in different directions until there are too many differences between their respective genomes for fertility. /ABE

The whole idea of transitional fossils is another self deception.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2019 11:03 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 04-06-2019 2:53 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2019 3:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 14 of 400 (850312)
04-06-2019 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-05-2019 8:05 PM


quote:

You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh

In reality that is an open question. Whether macroevolution involves anything more than iterated microevolution is not decided.

quote:

Microevolution is just another word for the variation that occurs in a given genome over the generations.

By the usual definitions it also includes mutations - and in fact you yourself have explicitly done so by claiming that antibiotic resistance is an example of microevolution. Since antibiotic resistance can appear in a clonal population - without any genetic variation - it must arrive by mutation in those instances. (It is, of course rather easy to get a clonal population of organisms that rapidly reproduce by binary fission)

quote:

The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color.

Given the timescales involved it seems quite plausible that large numbers of smaller changes could do the same thing.

quote:

You cannot get variation beyond the genome.

Then how do we get antibiotic resistance appearing in a clonal population ?

quote:

Not only is it limited to the genetic makeup for the particular creature that possesses it, but as the variations occur in any particular direction they eventually run into the situation of fixed loci or homozygosity for the trait, beyond which further evolution is not possible on that line of variation.

No, we don’t because of mutation. And that is why it hasn’t happened.

quote:

I'm rignt about this. Macroevolution or the ToE is simply impossible by the nature of genetics.

If producing antibiotic resistance in a clonal population is macroevolution - and you are saying that it is (even if everyone else disagrees) - you have been proven wrong by a simple experiment that has been tried many times over.

quote:

Fossils are simply not a record of evolution, they are just dead creatures of their own particular kind.

When you can come up with a genuinely better explanation - one that fits the evidence better, not one you happen to like - then you can say that honestly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-05-2019 8:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 15 of 400 (850314)
04-06-2019 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
04-06-2019 2:05 AM


Jeeez! You literalists are no fun at all! AZPaul3 was being sarcastic in an obvious parody of you stupid literalists! Jeeeez!
Of course he was being sarcastic, but to be sarcastic about microevolution in the way he was shows he doesn't have a clue. And neither do you. None of you will ever see what is really going on because you are glued into your ToE expectations.

Double down?

Even sarcasm means nothing to these people.

But it was funny. Hilariously funny, so there is at least that.

M'Lady, I hope this will not overstep my bounds again, but you are the most delightful ignoramus on the forum.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 2:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019