Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,619 Year: 18,655/19,786 Month: 1,075/1,705 Week: 327/518 Day: 3/88 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
michah
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 304 (244776)
09-19-2005 1:24 AM


Hi, all...
Before we get started on this newer forum, I would like to state my beliefs and presuppositions as to allow yourselves to fully understand where I am coming from.
* I am a devout Christian who believes the Bible to be 100% accurate
* I believe in micro- but not macro- evolution
* I am interested in recieving information which might serve to either prove or disprove evolution on the topic being presented.
---Now that that's all over, to the question. I understand that there are several other strands and forums discussing relatively the same topic, however, upon review of such forums, have become frustrated due to the elusions of the persons involved to procure any substantial evidence beyond that which they heard from somebody who was quoting someone else at the time. I understand that at times generalizations of such topics are required, but come on people!! Present at least a few decent facts or links to factual, studied evidence before pouring out your heart into an area you haven't even taken to research for yourself...
Anyways, I present this question to any interested in reading and replying to my forum... If, as "assumed" by evolutionary scientists, the world is some billion years old and we, as non-designated species are in constant transition, with projected THOUSANDS of stages within our develpement, with a fossil record beyond belief to "supposedly" support such and ideal, are we unable, or incapable of presenting ANY SIGNIFICANT finds which would SCIENTIFICALLY prove that belief? And even if we do have a few scraps, why, if we are in constant transition, including the staggering collection of fossils stated earlier, are there so few in contrast? Shouldn't there be THOUSANDS of such fossils, just, if not better preserved than their respective ancestors and decendants?
-I am avidly awaiting responses from ANY view-points, not simply limited to a biased view of either solely evolutionist or creationist (although stating your position in the beginning would be deeply helpful in allowing a more informed interpretation of what you might state).
Thanks again,
Michah

This message has been edited by michah, 09-19-2005 10:50 PM

This message has been edited by Admin, 10-20-2005 07:39 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-19-2005 8:59 AM michah has responded
 Message 5 by Yaro, posted 09-20-2005 10:31 AM michah has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 09-20-2005 11:05 AM michah has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2005 12:50 PM michah has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 304 (244830)
09-19-2005 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by michah
09-19-2005 1:24 AM


I can release this if you can remove the portions that don't directly address your topic. That would be the parts requesting good-faith debate and to stay on topic. These are moderator responsibilities. Members do not moderate their own threads.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by michah, posted 09-19-2005 1:24 AM michah has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by michah, posted 09-19-2005 10:52 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
michah
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 304 (245050)
09-19-2005 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-19-2005 8:59 AM


is that acceptable?
I aim to please...if there are other problems, just let me know and they will be promptly addressed. Thanks for the time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-19-2005 8:59 AM Admin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 4 of 304 (245132)
09-20-2005 10:08 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4782 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 5 of 304 (245136)
09-20-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by michah
09-19-2005 1:24 AM


* I am a devout Christian who believes the Bible to be 100% accurate

Well, let me ask you this, and this is an important question. Are you willing to consider that your belief may be wrong? That is, that the bible ISN'T 100% correct?

Because if you cannot be swayed from this possition, there is not point in a discussion.

* I believe in micro- but not macro- evolution

No such thing. What creationists call 'micro' and 'macro' are the same thing. Biologists make no such distinction.

* I am interested in recieving information which might serve to either prove or disprove evolution on the topic being presented.

Nothing can be proven 100%, but a hypothesis can be ruled out on the basis of evidence. Currently the evidence points toward evolution and fully contradicts creationism.

...but come on people!! Present at least a few decent facts or links to factual, studied evidence before pouring out your heart into an area you haven't even taken to research for yourself...

Are you refering to evolution? I see studies posted here every day. Many of our posters are actual scientists in the field. What are you talking about?

... If, as "assumed" by evolutionary scientists, the world is some billion years old and we, as non-designated species are in constant transition, with projected THOUSANDS of stages within our develpement, with a fossil record beyond belief to "supposedly" support such and ideal, are we unable, or incapable of presenting ANY SIGNIFICANT finds which would SCIENTIFICALLY prove that belief?

There are plenty of finds and there is plenty of evidence. What would you propose we find in order to convince you? i.e. what is YOUR standard of evidence?

And even if we do have a few scraps, why, if we are in constant transition, including the staggering collection of fossils stated earlier, are there so few in contrast? Shouldn't there be THOUSANDS of such fossils, just, if not better preserved than their respective ancestors and decendants?

Again, it is important to this topic that you please explain what YOU think we should see in the fossil record, and what YOUR standard of evidence is.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-20-2005 10:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by michah, posted 09-19-2005 1:24 AM michah has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 12:45 PM Yaro has not yet responded
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2005 10:14 AM Yaro has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6803
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 6 of 304 (245147)
09-20-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by michah
09-19-2005 1:24 AM


Hello, michah, and welcome to EvC.

quote:
I am interested in recieving information which might serve to either prove or disprove evolution on the topic being presented.

I'm not sure what you are expecting for "proof". The way the theory of evolution works is that we say, "If common descent is true, then we should see such-and-such." Then we go out and see if we actually do see such-and-such. If we do, then that counts a confirmation for evolution. If not, then we either have to explain why factors prevent us from seeing such-and-such, or we have to modify the theory. After repeated confirmation over many, many years, we can consider the theory "proven" in some sense -- this is how every scientific theory works. Predictions, then observation, then further modification if necessary.

The remarkable thing about the theory of evolution is that common descent through natural selection of randomly occurring variations has been pretty well confirmed over the last 150 years. The only minor modification to the basic theory has been the recognition that neutral drift may also have a measurable effect on the evolution of species.

-

quote:
Present at least a few decent facts or links to factual, studied evidence before pouring out your heart into an area you haven't even taken to research for yourself...

Why do you think none of us have studied this ourselves? Does the link I provided count as "decent facts"?

-

quote:
are we unable, or incapable of presenting ANY SIGNIFICANT finds which would SCIENTIFICALLY prove that belief?

Why are you so concerned about fossils? The theory of evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence in many different scientific disciplines besides the fossil record. In fact, the fossil record was not very well known in Darwin's time, and scientists became convinced of common descent very quickly based on Darwin's collection of non-fossil evidence.

That said, what do you expect to see in the fossil record? It is known that fossilization is a pretty rare process -- we are pretty lucky to have any fossils at all. That said, we do have some remarkable examples of transitional fossils that confirm the theory of common descent very well.

What problem do you see with the fossil record, and why do you think it presents a problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by michah, posted 09-19-2005 1:24 AM michah has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 10:20 PM Chiroptera has responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 304 (245165)
09-20-2005 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yaro
09-20-2005 10:31 AM


I just thought I would throw this in...

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

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.

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? Therefore, why should we label something a transitional fossil when we don't see any transitions occuring in the thousands of species that we have observed over the last several hundred years? Are we to assume that Uniformitarianism is false?

I think the author of this thread has a good point, though. 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. 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!!! National Geographic was so excited about the possibility of finding a rare transitional form (which should not be rare if evolution is true) that they bought into a fake. They had to report it was a fake in a later article stating that they had been duped. How do we know that if Archaeopterix is the only one that people have lied to the public about?

This message has been edited by Eledhan, 09-20-2005 12:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yaro, posted 09-20-2005 10:31 AM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 12:50 PM Eledhan has responded
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 09-20-2005 1:07 PM Eledhan has responded
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 09-20-2005 1:13 PM Eledhan has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 09-20-2005 1:23 PM Eledhan has responded
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2005 1:36 PM Eledhan has responded
 Message 31 by Rahvin, posted 09-20-2005 1:44 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 304 (245166)
09-20-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by michah
09-19-2005 1:24 AM


What we see is what we should see
I am interested in recieving information which might serve to either prove or disprove evolution on the topic being presented.

The theory is open to falsification, but it is not really something which evidence can prove...no theory is in this position - it can only have supporting evidence.

Present at least a few decent facts or links to factual, studied evidence before pouring out your heart into an area you haven't even taken to research for yourself...

There are quite a few people on this forum who work in evolution related fields. In many threads peer reviewed literature is referenced, however due to the nature of internet debates much of the literature needs registration to view in full and only abstracts are possible. Still, there are plenty of pdfs online and they are often linked to where necessary.

If, as "assumed" by evolutionary scientists, the world is some billion years old

If my memory serves me, evolution initially required an older earth that was thought at the time of its devising. So evolution doesn't assume an old earth, it predicts one. If the earth was as young as the YECers would have us believe then evolution would be falsified. However, independent sciences (cosmology, nuclear physics, geology etc) have all concluded that the earth is old which agrees with evolutionary timescales...indeed the dates given by an entirely seperate science of radiodating coincide astonishingly accurately with molecular biological clocks.

Its not really an assumption, it has a lot of supporting evidence. Indeed it is much stronger evidence than would convict a criminal of a capital offence.

and we, as non-designated species are in constant transition, with projected THOUSANDS of stages within our develpement, with a fossil record beyond belief to "supposedly" support such and ideal, are we unable, or incapable of presenting ANY SIGNIFICANT finds which would SCIENTIFICALLY prove that belief?

Each generation is a 'stage' and not each generation is preserved in the fossil record. What we see is a fossil 'A' and a fossil 'G' and in between these fossils we find fossil that look a little bit like fossil A but a tiny bit like fossil G, this is fossil C. Above fossil C, but below fossil G is a fossil that looks a bit more like G than C, but less like A than C - this is fossil E

Whilst it seems that there is no fossil B, D or F that dose not mean that C and E are not transitional. The fossil record is not complete, but it strongly points towards transitions.

Evidence: The Coelacanth has existed on Earth for the last 70million years without leaving a single fossil which was later discovered. The fossil record can and does skip millions of years.

And even if we do have a few scraps, why, if we are in constant transition, including the staggering collection of fossils stated earlier, are there so few in contrast?

I'm confused by this. If we only have a few fossils, and we have a lot of fossils why do we have so few fossils? I can't make sense of it.

Shouldn't there be THOUSANDS of such fossils, just, if not better preserved than their respective ancestors and decendants?

Why should there be? What is the rate of fossilization? How many species *should* be fossilized. The answer is any where between none of them to all of them. Of those that are fossilized, how many of them should survive millions/billions of year? The answer: all of them to none of them.

In short, the number of fossils we see, is exactly the number of fossils we should see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by michah, posted 09-19-2005 1:24 AM michah has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 9 of 304 (245167)
09-20-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 12:45 PM


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

Sure they can, in that they can confirm predictions. For example, you shouldn't find jawed fish before about the Devonian. You should find fossils with intermediate traits between fish and amphibians. You don't know if it's the "exact lineal ancestor" of amphibians because there is no guarantee that that animal is preserved in the fossil record, it might have been very rare for example.

quote:
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?

You should qualify "even to a very small degree" before we can respond to it.


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 10 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 12:54 PM gene90 has responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 304 (245169)
09-20-2005 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by gene90
09-20-2005 12:50 PM


A very small degree - (n.) The extent to which an organism begins to look like something other than itself, or when it looks different enough from its original state to call it another organism.[/sarcasm]

This message has been edited by Eledhan, 09-20-2005 12:55 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 12:50 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 12:57 PM Eledhan has responded
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2005 11:47 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 11 of 304 (245170)
09-20-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 12:54 PM


quote:
A very small degree - (n.) The extent to which an organism begins to look like something other than itself

That could start when you compare a white rabbit to a brown rabbit.

quote:
or when it looks different enough from its original state to call it another organism.

Do you mean, different species? Phylum? Family?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just not sure how much change you expect us to reasonably observe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 12:54 PM Eledhan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:03 PM gene90 has responded

Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 304 (245176)
09-20-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by gene90
09-20-2005 12:57 PM


quote:
That could start when you compare a white rabbit to a brown rabbit.

That's not what I said. I don't look different from myself if I change shirts do I? That's no different than changing skin or fur color. That is simply a change in which gene is dominant over the other genes.

quote:
Do you mean, different species? Phylum? Family?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just not sure how much change you expect us to reasonably observe.


It's not a problem. I don't blame you.

Alright here ya go: 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. A dog becoming a wolf is not the change that I am talking about. That is still the same kind of animal.

So, maybe that will be enough for you to realize what type of change I am talking about.

Oh, and fossils, as I mentioned before, don't count for evidence towards this.

This message has been edited by Eledhan, 09-20-2005 01:05 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 12:57 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 1:06 PM Eledhan has not yet responded
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 09-20-2005 1:18 PM Eledhan has responded
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2005 11:51 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 304 (245177)
09-20-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 1:03 PM


quote:
So, maybe that will be enough for you to realize what type of change I am talking about.

Yes, it is much clearer now, thank you.

quote:
Alright here ya go: 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. A dog becoming a wolf is not the change that I am talking about. That is still the same kind of animal.

Should we expect, based on the evo paradigm, that we should have documented this in the 5000 or so years of recorded history?

This message has been edited by gene90, 09-20-2005 01:06 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:03 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 14 of 304 (245178)
09-20-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 12:45 PM


Eledhan writes:

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,...

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

...let alone kids who were different than their parents...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...

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.

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 years ago there was an unsuccessful effort by Fred Hoyle to prove the archaeopteryx fossil at the British Museum a fraud. To date there is no indication that the known archaeopteryx fossils are anything but authentic.

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!!! National Geographic was so excited about the possibility of finding a rare transitional form (which should not be rare if evolution is true) that they bought into a fake. They had to report it was a fake in a later article stating that they had been duped. How do we know that if Archaeopterix is the only one that people have lied to the public about?

That a Chinese farmer was able to commit fraud on National Geographic proves what, exactly? If you plan to argue that any transitional fossils presented in this thread are frauds then I suggest you start another thread. Let's keep this one free of conspiracy theories.

--Percy


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 17 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:17 PM Percy has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1956
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 15 of 304 (245182)
09-20-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 12:45 PM


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!!!

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


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 7 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 12:45 PM Eledhan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 1:15 PM DrJones* has not yet 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