Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punisher:
.......I do have a question. If a fish dwelling creature somehow developed a set of lungs over a long period of time; wouldn't he drown at some stage between a lack of gills and the prescence of lungs? If a rat starting growing wings from his front forelimbs; wouldn't he quickly be eaten or starve because of his inability to move with elongated yet useless front limbs/wings? My examples are simplified, I know. [QUOTE] Though you give simple examples and easy observations, no one bothered to respond to you query. There are a multiplicity of questions that arise on how particular species survived while they evolved, when their evolutionary traits would have left them very vulnerable to attack or would have resulted in their own destruction due to their not having all the necessary traits appear all at once in a single generation. These types of problems evolutionists prefer not to address. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!This is similar to the modern pens evolving from quill pens or other such examples to which it must be replied that inanimate objects, things that have no life, cannot evolve. Automobiles do not evolve because they are not alive. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, this presents them with a problem when evolution is traced back to the beginning. This is also why evolutionists must say that the study of evolution does not deal with how life began. If they attempted to deal with the origin of life from non-life, they could never use the "you're an ignorant liar" defense without including themselves in the "ignorant liars" category. This is why they must have their theory begin after life has already been established. To go back to the beginning of life springing forth from non-life with no help from an Intelligent Designer who could set it in motion, brings them headlong into the titanium wall of uncalculable improbability if not complete and total impossibility.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

I found nothing of any real substance in your post so I feel it best to simply reply in this manner and agree to disagree. Shalom Jet

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:I guess you don't think that lungfish, which exist, are possible.OK, I'll just be moving my chair a little farther away now...***Really schraf, that was silly. What I don't accept is that lungfish are in some state of evolution. I would not accept that anymore than I would accept that a whale, dolphin, or any other sea mammal is in an evolutionary journey from the sea to the land, or visa versa. That an abundance of wonderfully marvelous creatures exist on this planet is simply more proof of the existance of our most wonderful Creator, whom you have chosen to abandon because of the Catholic church. I can understand your abandonment of the Catholic church, and I applaud it. What I cannot understand is your abandonment of your Creator. It was not your Creator who instructed the Catholics to adopt the pagan practices of Babylon. Abandon the Catholics, by all means. But you should really try to get to know your Creator now that you are free from the quagmire that is Catholicism. Only when you have come to know your Creator apart from some spurious, if not pagan religious dogma will you be able to fully appreciate the magnificance of the wonders of your Creator and His creation. I wish you much success.*** Shalom Jet------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:The fact that the evidence is completely consistent with evolutionary theory yet remains for you to explain.--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]***The fact is that the evidence is not "completely consistent with evolutionary theory" but is rather 100% consistant with creation by an Intelligent Creator. If what you claim was true, this club would not exist. The fact that it does exist is proof that the TOE is not a satisfactory explanation for life on this planet.*** Shalom Jet

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:

What does this have to do with a lung fish ?
Zat all ya got ?
Shall we discuss Salsa recipes too ?

​

Sermons are misplaced and less than convincing here. Stick to the facts, please.

​

jeff

​

***I guess the truth hurts some people. Sorry if I struck a nerve.***

​

Shalom

​

Jet

​

---

------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy

Fine, Percy, Let me be very specific. The topic is "Does evidence of transitional forms exist?"You say yes, and many scientists will back up that claim.I say no, and many scientists will back up that claim.Is science now to be determined as being accurate based upon majority opinion? If so, then where do we go from here? Shalom Jet------------------
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.Professor Paul Davies

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:Transitionals 'in-between' would, seeing as evolution is such
a gradual process, be almost but not quite identical to their
root species ... they probably wouldn't even be considered
as a separate species to either their ancestor OR their descendent
depending on the level of change that had accumulated.***Within a few transitions, I would tend to agree. However, until science is able to follow transition after transition until a new and totally different species appears, which I don't see happening, ever, then the necessary evidence of transitionals will continue to miss the mark.*** Shalom ------------------
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.Professor Paul Davies

Originally posted by Percipient:That's why out-of-context quotes by Davies and Jastrow accomplish nothing.--Percy***This quote of yours, taken out of context, is not unlike any other out of context quote. It forces the reader to examine the fuller text of the individual being quoted. I have not seen, within this forums' setting, a single example of an individuals quote that was not taken out of context. Even your fourm guidelines are prohibitive to such an exercise as full quotation, but rather suggest providing a reference link to further enlighten any individual who may care to check it out more intensely.That Davies or Jastrow actually said what was attributed to them in not in question. Neither is their actual position in regards to the TOE. Nothing within the limited quotes provided should be received as being ample evidence of their positional beliefs and I doubt any intelligent individual would consider them as such. The quotes do, however, give a clear indication that they recognize that the TOE is unable to answer every question and that sometimes, just maybe, theology is better suited to answer some questions than is science, even within the realm of a naturalistic understanding of the universe.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]What actually makes two similar species different,
and how can we tell this from skeletal remains alone
(fossilised or otherwise).What I am sugesting is that the numbers of remains required
to perform statistical analysis of anomalies doesn't exist.***I agree, they do not exist.***JetWhat does exists are sufficient remains to identify trends
of change ... pointing to evolution.***And this is speculative, not hard science.***JetIn special creation terms, there is no reason why we should expect
to find (apparent) sequences in the fossil record or skeletal
remains. In fact we should expect the NO such sequence.***Key word here is "apparent". This is also a speculative statement. When referring to speciation, or micro-evolution as Evos prefer to call it, which is a misnomer in my opinion, there is no reason to discount creation in favor of evolution. In fact, speciation is better explained by Intelligent Design than it is by psuedo-science, aka the TOE.***JetTaking hominid remains alone, and since the masses and survivablities (mentioned in TC's flood 'model') are roughly
the same, there is no reason from a literalist biblical view
that accounts for the apparent time sequence of the remains.***Not having examined TCs' flood model, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. However, the fact remains that what many Evos are fond of claiming is a fully substantiated reality, (I cannot begin to number the amount of times I have seen Evos reply that the TOE is a "proven" fact, while in the same breath, making the claim that the TOE in not about "proofs" but, rather, is about where the evidence points), is in reality nothing more than a speculative guess of what actually occurred in the distant past. This is just another one of the many reasons that I contend that the TOE is not scientific, but in reality, is nothing short of neo-psuedo-science, even under the most liberal of definitions of the term "science".***Jet Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[B] I know of no evolutionists who disagree with this. Evolution is not intended to answer every question as some YECs seem to think it should. Are you saying then that science might be a better suited to answer some questions ... just maybe?***Well, let me preface this reply by stating that I am NOT, repeat NOT a YEC. Having said that, and in response to you inquiry as to whether "science might be a better suited to answer some questions", my answer would be yes, with qualification. IMHO, when science is buttressed by theology, assuming that the theology is based solely upon the Holy Word of God, it is better suited to answer many of the difficult questions that we face when attempting to find the answers to the mysteries of the universe.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

Originally posted by schrafinator:
All of the evidence is also consistent with the idea that the Universe was created 15 seconds ago, with all of our memories of past events intact. Another brilliant observation from our resident Steve Allen groupie. What is left to say other than the followers of a "still dead and buried comedian" are definitely on a different plane of enlightenment than are we, the followers of a risen Messiah, the Creator of the Universe. Go figure!Oh yeah, lest we forget......."A full frontal attack on the dumbing down so endemic in American society today. The book itself is dangerously close to being an example of the dumbth it attacks, but it is easy to read and may help to bring this problem to mind in a common sense sort of way. It is not all too intellectual, and not at all scientific."From A Review of the Book "Dumbth" by Steve AllenMy condolences to all you Steve Allen groupies out there. Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] So, Jet, what help from "The holy word of God" do the people at NASA use to get all of those space shuttle missions going, or any of the other projects they have going on?***Really Schraf, sometimes you ask the most inane questions. I suggest you attempt to contact someone at NASA if you are truly interested in any particular individuals views concerning the HOLY WORD OF GOD!*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

Originally posted by Peter:
Sorry, just re-read this ... are you looking for
a transitional between, say, a reptile and a bird ?***Though I realize it has been forever since this was posted, I chose to reply. What I hope for is an example of any living species that the Evos may choose to use where the fossil record shows transition after transition after transition, etc., back to its' most simple form. If the species does not show a complete transition fossil record then please offer a species that has the most complete transitional record.***I've noticed that many anti-evo's accept speciation,
do you ? (BTW - I thought creationists came up with the term
micro-evolution, not evolutionists).***I accept speciation for what it is...special adaption of a given species to its' environment while remaining true to its kind and not being in the process of evolving from one species into another totally different and unique species. Speciation is not evolution.***You'll probably discount it as speculation, but comparitive
anatomy is one of the areas of evidence in favour of evolution
and within that there is the 'evolution of the ear oscicle(sp?)'.***Comparitive anatomy can also be accepted as one of the areas of evidence in favor of a common Creator.***Is that not even feasible, in your opinion?***At present, the only feasible explanation for life on this planet, considering the enormous complexities of even the most simple of life forms, is a common Creator who designed everything with a function and a purpose, with man having the greatest purpose of all, that being, to know his Creator intimately.***ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

ROTHLMFAOUIPIMNBJ!!!------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

Originally posted by Peter:
So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you don't object to
the ToE, but to claims that it is scientific and undeniable
fact.***I do not object to any theory being presented for what it truly is.......a theory!***You have stated that you are NOT a YEC, so could you elaborate
some of your views .. it would help debate issues. For example,
perhaps you do not hold the Bible as inerrant, or perhaps you
do but allow that it can be interpreted in different ways, or
perhaps you beleive in intelligent design, or ... etc.***TC's objections aside, I am an OEC and have concluded that scripture confirms this. While the average YEC concludes that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, the average OEC makes no attempt to place an age upon the earth. Mans' existance upon this earth is a different topic of discussion. I do hold the Bible as inerrant, though I do not argue this point in the light of numerous neo-translations. There are sufficient numbers of ancient texts from which one can verify the validity of a translation. While not a true oxymoron, Intelligent Design comes close to fitting into that category due to the obvious need of intelligence to comprehend the concept of design.***ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein